Sorry I have been late to reply - I've been tied most of today (as I will be on Sunday).
Well, first of all, and I know you know this, what you call “Darwinism” (or correctly, the Theory of Evolution) makes no statement whatsoever regarding the origin of life.
Actually I don't know that... That's kind of bizarre. An alleged 'scientific description' of the origin of life, but it declares 'off-limits' any discussion of origins? That doesn't make sense. I thought the premise of the 'Theory of Evolution' (darwinism), was that life came into existence by 'random chance'. That is, 'with enough time, anything can happen...'
Secondly, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is only applicable in closed system, i.e. one not subject to the introduction of material and energy from outside sources - unlike Earth (but you probably know that as well).
I've heard this claim. Doesn't mean I accept it. That is, you'll have to give me a better reason than to just to declare it off-limits because solar energy, cosmic rays, etc hit the earth... Is there any scientific evidence that these cause consistent (or even 'any') reversals in the entropy slope (i.e., a systematic decrease in entropy)?
The Theory of Evolution is supported by 150 years of research, countless peer reviewed scientific publications (in which people delight in finding the errors of others), and parsimonious scientific deduction.
Yeah, yeah ... and a million flies can't be wrong either... I'm just saying that 'darwinism' is more of a faith based religion than Creationism. At least 'Creationism' works. After the Creation week -- everything 'fits'. Life continues to degrade ... Entropy in action all around us...
Creationism is, well, about as valid scientifically as astrology, necromancy, phrenology, of any of a thousand other metaphysical scams.
Well, we are going to have to disagree.
Sorry about your belief system - it's wrong.
No need to be sorry. It is a belief system that has served many well (civilizations, scientists, believers, etc) over the past two millennium. It is a belief system that allows you stand over the grave of a loved one and say with confidence:
Isaiah 25:8-9 He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the LORD hath spoken it. And it shall be said in that day, Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us: this is the LORD; we have waited for him, we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation.
And to know that the one who spoke these words, is the one who we can say:
Jeremiah 32:17 Ah Lord GOD! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee
No, I don't envy any other belief system. Thanks.
Of course it doesn't make sense; any more than it would make sense to claim that the germ theory of disease declares the discussion of genetic diseases "off-limits".
IOW it is you not making sense. Every scientific theory has "boundary conditions," a specific domain in which it is relevant, a certain class of phenomena to which it is relevant. This doesn't lead a theory to assert or imply that questions falling outside of its domain are illegitimate. It just means they would need to be addressed by some other theory or theories.
As to why, specifically, the TOE only concerns living things, consider the final paragraph of Darwin's Origin:
It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
IOW Darwin's theory, and it's modern descendants, are only applicable to entities with these characteristics:
Growth, development, and one might add death -- because growth and development render the organism dependent on an environment to draw the necessary energy and other resources, and lead to a competition for such resources which allows for selective effects.
Reproduction and Variation -- the relevance of this to natural selection particularly should be obvious, but it's also relevant to other evolutionary mechanisms.
Ration of Increase -- modern biologists usually use the term, "superfecundity," which simply means the tendency, or at least capability, of organisms to produce far more offspring than the environment could support, were all to live to maturity and themselves reproduce. Again the relevance to natural selection should be obvious. This provides the excess of population among which selection "selects". But again it's also relevant to other mechanisms.
So evolutionary theory can only apply to entities which possess all these attributes, and the only entities that do are living organisms. Therefore the TOE of is only operative once living things exist. The TOE cannot explain the origin of life. There is nothing unusual about that. No scientific theory can explain it's own boundary conditions. If it could it would be a BAD thing.
The origin of life as such would have to be explained by some other theory (or theories). Such a theory may -- or may not -- have certain analogical similarities to the theory of biological evolution, but it would be a separate and distinct theory.