Thermodynamics refers to energy.
If I stack some bricks in a pattern then we could say that I’ve produced complexity/order and utilised energy to do so, giving a net disorder.
But can we say that?
The energy I’ve used versus the matter I’ve manipulated aren’t truly compatible.
The relationship between matter and energy is down in the quantum regions of our understanding.
Have I increased order/complexity on the quantum scale? No.
Have I increased order/complexity on the atomic scale? No.
Have I even increased order/complexity on the molecular scale? No.
The order I have established is only perceived on the macro scale, an irrelevance to thermodynamics.
Whilst we’re in the subject though, the idea of closed systems (which the earth isn’t as the sun inputs energy to our system at a fantastic rate, much to the detriment of its own order) applied to physics and erroneously to evolution, would only hold if the system were not being manipulated.
Now I don’t mean “intelligently”.
I mean organically.
In much the same way a volcano can “process” lava from a magma reservoir into a haphazard “structure”, biological forces can process matter and energy into complex structures (again to the detriment of the initial energy sources complex order).
So why is the second law of thermodynamics considered a valid point against evolution?
And even if it did go against a law of nature why would that show evolution can’t happen when it demonstrably does?
Surely our law would be wrong?
It simply (as I’ve tried to show) not applicable to this length scale.