The notion that evolution "is a two way street" appears to be an attempt to make all evidence fit the theory instead of allowing the evidence build the theory...the "certainty" of evolutionary is decided, and so regardless of ensuing events, that theory must be preserved.
In short, evolutionists seem to practice what they accuse intelligent design adherents of doing.'
Disclaimer: I find it hard to ignore the vast bulk of scientific evidence supporting evolution. DNA analysis has only made the case stronger.
The thermodynamics law you're referring to is most simply stated as "Entropy tends towards a maximum." That refers to thermal entropy. Taking our solar system as a whole, the Sun provides for a whole lot of entropy transfer, driving processes on Earth. Outside of evolution there are many examples of less organized entities becoming more organized. For instance, grass grows in soil (not structured, and not even necessarily organic). Then, cows eat the grass (still not very interesting or structured) and produce baby cows (more structured, and tasty as well!). That increasing level of organization for simple materials over time comes at the basic cost of lots of energy from the Sun.
I had heard decades ago of the idea that evolution no longer applies to humans. This makes some sense to me, as the central point of evolution is that species' characteristics gradually evolve to adapt to environmental changes. Humans, on the other hand, adapt their environment to suit them. Clothing, shelter, medicine, agriculture, commerce, as well as heating and cooling systems are all examples.
That doesn't quite cover everything though. Evolution-like forces are still in play based on human selection criteria (appearance, personality, wealth etc.). There is also the factor of reproductive success, i.e. how many offspring a given person (half) produces.
So, we have at least three major factors that are counter-productive:
It may take new frontiers. Robert A. Heinlein was a visionary in that regard, he recognized that we now have no frontiers, and without them the human race will tend to stagnate. We are now at the point where, with a little more work, advanced technology could easily open up the inner solar system to human colonization. Perhaps that's what it will take to stop the slow decline and set free the human spirit once again - as well as presenting challenges that will truly reward the best and brightest.
Sorry for the long post, I hope it's interesting. I've given a fair amount of thought to this over the years. I'd personally guess it's about a 50-50 whether or not we'll have an overall beneficial "reset" of many of three factors I mentioned here in the US over the next few years, along the lines of Civil War II.
Those are some interesting thoughts...and a quite different perspective from some others.
Curious that one would believe we have no new frontiers...weren’t some saying that at the beginning of the 20th century, too? :)
Along the lines of your DNA opinion, have you considered Stephen C Meyer’s book “Signature in the Cell”?
Arguably modern war is a highly negative selection force.
In ancient times the best warriors were more likely to survive, and they had their pick of the losers women, as it was acceptable to breed from them. See the Iliad for a thorough introduction to this mindset.
The probability of death or incapacitating injury in modern war is nearly random, while the most dangerous military jobs are selected for among the most fit. So we expose our best to a random probability of death. And the survivors don’t get extra women.