I'm not sure if you ever got an answer to this from anyone else. It's a very good question, I think. But it's also a bit misleading in that I never said that it was. This thread is about the article by Sewell, and I think he makes the argument himself better than I could.
My point on this thread was to refute those idiots who blather on about antievolutionists supposedly not understanding SLoT or accusing anyone who claims there is a SLoT challenge to Naturalism is an idiot. Just look at the literature out there and you'll see that the whole question of how the SLoT applies to the biological world is a matter of serious ongoing investigation.
My argument is NOT that "SLoT proves evolution is false" but rather that "People who claim that there is not and never has been a SLoT challenge to Naturalism worthy of serious study by highly qualified scientists are either ignorant of scientific history or bald faced liars".
So all your side would need to do to kill this whole thread is to say: "You know what; you guys raise an interesting challenge, but I think it's been met with the following response....". But because you are all ideological fanatics, not objective scientists, you just can't seem to bring yourselves to say that.
Which takes me to my more basic argument which is NOT that evolution is false, but that evolution is primarily perpetuated as a presuppositional ideology, not as an evidentiary scientific discipline.
I didn't get one from you either, and I won't get one at all. It's a rhetorical question. The thermodynamic properties of evolution are the same as those for life. If life doesn't violate the 2nd law, then evolution doesn't.
There's a slightly stronger case for problems with abiogenesis. Darwinian evolution won't get life started, at least we haven't figured out how.
But there is no 2nd law barrier to abiogenesis; we see many organic compounds in deep space. The question is how they get put together into the first replicator. If you want to believe this was a miracle, I can't argue against you.
Yet.