I notice one side simply blunders on when asked to back up the claim that a peer reviewed article or textbook concludes that thermodynamics precludes evolution.
I notice one side simply blunders on after claiming that evolution requires simultaneous identical mutations in a mating pair.
I notice one side never corrects such boneheaded claims.
I've already pointed out that this article (or the guts of it) is in the textbook published by Wiley. Now I don't know if it's used as a textbook. That's a matter of discretion for individual prof's across the country (and world).
And no-one said SLOT necessarily precludes ToE, AFAIK, simply that it presents a significant problem for ToE. Most serious science doesn't progress by people claiming that an individual finding completely destroys a theory. That's how it works in pop culture (like here), but not in "Science".
So either I've misunderstood your claim, or you're lying at this point. "Our side" has not blundered on as you claim. What you have asked for has been provided.
On the contrary, your side (b_sharp excluded, and perhaps bds, not sure) blunders on repeating the same cr@p that all you need to do to accomodate SLOT is throw the system open to the sun and all the problems are solved. This false claim has been corrected and yet your side keeps repeating it.