David R. Abel of the Origin of Life Science Foundation, Inc., says no. And also that the law he formulated on the subject has never been falsified, despite a number of journal publications. He posits it as The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency, as follows:

The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency states that physicochemical interactions are inadequate to explain the mathematical and formal nature of physical law relationships.

He offers his law for falsification.

“If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”

If only one exception to this null hypothesis were published the hypothesis would be falsified. Falsification would require an experiment devoid of behind-the-scenes steering. Any artificial selection hidden in the experimental design would disqualify the experimental falsification. After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided.

The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction:

“No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.”

How can such a bold, dogmatic prediction possibly be made by any reputable scientist? The answer lies first in the fact that it is just a null hypothesis designed for open-minded testing.

Takers?