I'll agree with that from the evo side. Although I'm no expert, it seems obvious to me that thermodynamic considerations are a major constraint on theories of chemical evolution/abiogenesis. I don't agree that they make abiogensis presumptively impossible, but clearly you're going to have to appeal to chemical synthesis that, under "normal" circumstances, involves very low probability reactions. So your theory is going to need a mechanism or boundary conditions that explains how they can occur, how the reactants can remain in sufficient concentration, or what have you.
IOW issues of probability and entropy are clearly relevant. But they simply aren't with respect to biological evolution because life as such has already overcome entropy, and is continuously doing so. All life processes, including evolution, occur in a low entropy environment to begin with.
I see biogenesis as a trap door function, like an encryption algorithm. The key could be relative short, and not improbable at all, but impossible to derive from the message, particularly after billions of years of evolutionary change.
My personal anger is not directed toward people who disagree about how it might have happened, but toward those who argue we shouldn't be looking.