Allow me to ask a counter question; How would you define the coding system contained in DNA and justify its self-ordering polymer construction. I know it is a product of evolution and natural selection, but what would you call the "result" of this incredible self-organization into a dynamical coding system which governs all eukaryotic biology.
Chance...? Probablity...? Product of universal physical constants...?
That is a difficult question.
I would call it a product of natural laws and a natural event. Isn't this the very definition of science? To define the natural laws behind phenomena? And remove the need to refer to ghosts, intelligent design or cosmic purposes of any kind?
Sometimes science doesn't have an exact explanation for a phenomenon, but this doesn't mean that there isn't a natural explanation. We just need to figure it out.
There is also a natural explanation for life that we haven’t figured out yet, but it is totally feasible to do so.
I am not claiming this is the case, but a good example of why this is doable, is the fact that with 2 simple and self-evident (but often overlooked) assumptions, you can simplify the problem by orders of magnitude.
1)That living creatures are primarily pure biochemical systems, and as such there is no such thing as a separate individual organism (the latter is just the anthropocentric viewpoint). All living things exist because of the other life that exists or pre-existed, with which they interact. Even food consumption, waste or gas by-products that recycle are part of the system from a very strict biochemical perspective.
So some of the biochemical reactions are anabolic, some are catabolic, but as a whole they increase the disorder of the system.
2)That we are the observers. And we observe from inside the system. I mean, the results of a procedure are the very observers of the procedure. This easily cancels out the epicness of self-organization. Lets say you have the series of events: A->B->C.......Y->Z->A->B...etc and the observer is composed by (M+N), then it is obvious that this observer will see this system as self-organized. Now this is an over-simplification, but my point that any system will be viewed as self-organizing from the viewpoint of some results of this system.
Now i have previously described some of my personal views about life and biology in previous threads, you can see there if you want.
My short answer to your answer would be that the complex 3D structures of organic macromolecules and their "stickiness" are key factors. The 3D structures (with external energy) turns chemistry into a matter of geometry somehow and enables so many complex spatial conformations and interactions that not only equillibrium becomes impossible, but also you have trillions of different chemical interactions of any kind in small confined spaces. Stickiness creates the stable structures we see locally (e.g DNA packing).
But then again my personal views on life are not the topic of this conversation so i would not want to go any further.
