I’m ignorant in this field, but just from reading some of it does the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics make evolution impossible?
<rant>
I can't even begin to tell you how tiresome I find these arguments between young earth creationists and atheists. As a skeptic of theism in all its forms (including atheism) I think there are very good ID arguments. However, the claim that evolution violates the 2nd Law is flat-out crap and ID proponents make themselves look like idiots when they try to make this claim. I got my PhD in physics in 1984, and other than a brief stint as an instructor (I did, coincidentally, teach thermodynamics and statistical thermo to undergrads), I have never used my degree. I know I open myself to all kinds of flames from people in replying to these threads and usually don't, but the 2nd law claim is one I just won't put up with. It's baloney.
</rant>
To answer your question: the mistake evolutionary critics make is in describing evolution as "random." Nothing could be further from the truth. evolution is not random. It is ultimately driven by energy extremization principles and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. What is a remarkable argument in favor of ID is missed by young earth creationists desperate to invoke physics against evolution is this: the process by which evolution proceeds is essentially a Markov process. Of all processes in mathematical statistics, this kind of process is the only one which can be proven to absolutely guarantee that the optimum configuration will be reached. Now that is an argument in favor of a designer, whether you like it or not. The problem is, the Designer utilizing the optimum process would have to use evolution to achieve His results--and this is what the young earth creationists find objectionable.