Entropy is not synonymous with "disorder". This is a common mistake, but a large one.
And if order should randomly occur,
What about order that occurs nonrandomly?
unless something happens to "freeze" that order, it has a tendency to go back to a state of disorder.
Again, conflating entropy with "disorder" is a fallacy.
This would appear to present a problem for evolution in achieving greater states of complexity.
It might "appear" as such to first glance, but it isn't an impediment to anyone who sits down and examines the issue in a non-superficial way.
Furthermore, a "tendency" towards "disorder" is only that -- a tendency. The very choice of the word admits that there exist conditions under which exceptions to the trend are found.
The problem (okay, *one* of the many problems) with the creationist claims about the Second Law of Thermodynamics is that they try to turn a *tendency* into some sort of ironclad *rule* -- that since things *tend* to disorder, order can't naturally arise or maintain itself at *all*. And this is just completely bogus. If it were true, it would make the formation of snowflakes impossible, among many other common processes.
Gerald Schroeder stated it this way in his most recent book: "In any situation where order is not imposed, momentary order always degrades to chaos."
Errrrnt! See, there they go -- jumping from an (alleged) *tendency* towards disorder, to an "always" claim. Wrong.
And what does he mean by "imposed" -- does he mean imposed by an intelligence? Or merely imposed by conditions? If the latter, that still fails to rule out evolutionary conditions. If the former, it's goofy, because physical laws do not contain *exceptions* for the action of humans. If it's truly one of the laws of physics, then *we* wouldn't be able to break it either. We don't get to break the law of conservation of matter/energy just because we're intelligent agents, and we wouldn't be able to break the (creationist version) of the "law of no increasing order" either, if such a thing actually existed (which it doesn't).
He suggests there is the additional need of the imposition of order from an outside source.
He can suggest anything he like, but it's not true. Order arises naturally in natural without "imposition of order from an outside source". Physicists are well aware of this, even if creationists remain remarkably ignorant of basic science.
Isn't it possible that someone could hold an opinion other than yours and not be "pig-ignorant"?
Certainly. It is not, however, possible for someone to make a Second Law of Thermodynamics argument against evolution without being extremely ignorant of the subject, because anyone who actually understands enough about thermodynamics to be able to do basic analysis with it will be unable to make an argument as jaw-droppingly flawed as the creationists do.
Furthermore, most of the creationists who "present" the SLoT "argument" against evolution don't know enough about the topic to formulate that argument on their own, they're merely parroting someone *else's* claim about it, and when pressed to deal with the usual refutations against that argument, they commonly are unable to articulate any attempted rebuttal on the merits of the argument itself or the basics of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
And let's say that you don't think anyone should have an opinion other than yours,
Let's not.
is there pleasure in calling them "pig-ignorant." It doesn't strengthen your argument.
I never made the mistake of thinking that it did. What strengthens my argument is pointing out the elementary flaws in the creationist anti-evolution arguments, including the ones in their goofy misapplications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Calling them pig-ignorant is merely an observation, not part of the argument. It is also an attempt to embarrass them into actually learning something about science before they make any more vapid and fallacious arrogant claims about it. Unfortunately, this seldom works because anti-evolution creationists have no shame (see examples on this very thread). Finally, it alerts readers that the creationist SLoT argument is not merely mistaken -- it's not just a forgivable misunderstanding, or something on which reasonable people can disagree -- it's bone-headedly, mind-bogglingly out to lunch. It's the kind of flub that *should* be ridiculed when someone confidently presents it as a killer argument, an ironclad "disproof" of an entire well-established field of science, as if the countless researchers who have investigated evolutionary biology over the past 100+ years have managed to "overlook" an "obvious" elementary impossibility underlying their field of study, that only the creationists have been "smart" enough to realize and smugly present to "educate" those misguided biologists...
In short, when it comes to basic principles of physics, it's not a matter of "differing opinion". There are right answers, and there are wrong answers. The creationists have been getting this one wrong for over thirty years, at least (Henry Morris published his version of this argument in 1974, and there may have been earlier instances), and *still* haven't managed to get it right despite decades of being corrected on it countless times.
"Pig-ignorant" is, if anything, and understatement to describe the kind of thick-skulled obstinance it takes to continue to make the same flawed argument for over three decades in the face of continued refutations, while failing to learn enough basic physics to even understand the refutations.