I think "defy" is way too strong a word, VR. "Co-opt" might be better. Living systems are not closed systems. And they seem to manage to keep as great a distance from thermal equilibrium as possible. They also do other things that inorganic systems are not observed to do, such as modify their paths from the paths predicted on the basis of initial conditions and the laws of physics. They also seem capable of storing energy, not just dissipating it into the environmental sink. They are sensitively responsive, extraordinarily complex (think: extraordinarily information-intensive), and appear to be organized from a "global" level (global level of the organism, that is). Thus they are irreducible to the parts of which they are composed. Which is just another way of saying they are not completely reducible to matter.
If all it would take for life to spontaneously rise from matter on the basis of the physical laws alone is a suitably powerful energy source, then Frankenstein's experiment would have worked, and abiogenesis would work, too. I mean, the Sun is just such a source; and life in our world requires solar energy. But still experiments seeking to demonstrate abiogenesis have been conducted in this same world, with this same Sun, and the results have been negative so far.
Alamo-Girl has referenced some very interesting seeming exceptions to some of these observations; i.e., the creation of a polio virus, chopped up flatworms, et al. But these exceptions do not falsify the observation that life -- though materially based and thus subject to the laws of physics at that level -- is not wholly reducible to the physical laws; if it were, then it would be impossible for living organisms to alter their prescribed paths as dictated by the laws of physics, given the initial conditions.
The second law of thermodynamics is the "creative" law; the world would be totally static, totally unchanging without it. The first law is the "conservation" law -- the law of persistence, of that which does not change. If there were no first law, the universe would be only a chaos -- a non-existent nothing. It seems to take both to make a Universe. Life introduces another factor, however; or so it seems to me. And that is intelligence (e.g., Grandpierre's "creative agents"). I think that's what gives a "push" to things that come into existence.
Well, FWIW. Some of these insights are quite ancient -- the flux-and-permanence speculation goes back to Heraclitus, c. 500 B.C.... To me, it's a fabulous insight into the fundamental nature of the Universe.
It occurs to me the above might be described as a "top-down" approach to the problem of living systems. It seems current biological theory involves a "bottom-up" approach, extrapolating from simple matter to more complex systems in a time process....
Maxwell's demon hypothesis was probably just an interesting pipe dream -- it seems to be a case of a "deus ex machina" supposition that doesn't explain anything real....
Anyhoot, it's always fun to wonder (ruminate? speculate?) about such things, IMO. And so, thanks so much for sharing your thoughts, VR!