Yes to the first. Of course entropy creates problems for origin of life theory. But far from being "unconcerned," those working on origin of life are entirely concerned. The whole point is not to deny the problem -- how you get from non-life, to living organisms, which internally drive chemical reactions against entropy -- but to solve it. If they were "unconcerned," then by definition those working on origin of life theories, uh, wouldn't be working on origin of life theories.
The author's second contention, that entropy creates problems for "macroevolution," is simply stupid. Not only that, it is contradictory to his first contention.
The whole reason entropy provides a problem in elucidating how life might have originated is precisely because living things export entropy, i.e. concentrate negative entropy in themselves, i.e. preferentially catalyze internal chemical reactions in a way that internally increases energy available to do work. Living things do this continually, systematically and persistently. By contrast, non-living systems do not generally do this, not at least to the degree or with the persistence that organisms do. So the problem is how do you bridge that gap.
But, once you do have living organisms, that gap has already been bridged. You can no longer appeal to that problem.
Because evolution, including macroevolution, only concerns living organisms, and living organisms reduce entropy, there can't be any contradiction between evolution and entropy. Certainly not in the facile fashion this creationist and others propose.
Consider that, not only is a living organism, like a mammal for instance, able to concentrate enough negative entropy to develop from a single cell to millions of cells organized into complex, and complexly interacting, organ systems; it is further able to daily expend thousands of calories in doing work on the world around it; even, in the case of one particular species, to build skyscrapers and civilizations.
By comparison, the amount of work against entropy required to evolve a mammal from a fish, distributed in tiny bits over the course of hundreds of millions of years, is utterly trivial!
“If they were ‘unconcerned,’ then by definition those working on origin of life theories, uh, wouldn’t be working on origin of life theories.”
That’s not necessarily true. Seeking the origin of life is not to everyone synonymous with asking “When did organisms start internally driving chemical reactions against entropy?” To some, namely lots of evolutionists, the question is when did organisms start “replicating” themselves. I can’t say I’d agree. What about creatures who lived—in the same sense as we do, however you’d describe it—but didn’t pass anything on to another generation? Did they not exist until they passed things on?
Anyway, just saying, people can inquire into the origin of life without being centrally concerned about entropy.