Isaak next wants to dispel the “ignorance” upon which the claim is made that
“Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.” —Back—

Isaak begins with the expected declaration, “This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution.” But we soon shall see who misunderstands both thermodynamics AND evolution...

Defining the Law
 
 

Isaak’s definition of the second law of thermodynamics begins with: “No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body.” He then tells us that “confusion arises” when the 2nd law is phrased as: “The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease.” Anyone familiar with the 2nd law will recognize that both statements are true, and that the second statement is commonly used of the two axioms in defining the 2nd law as it pertains to Classical Thermodynamics—yet for Isaak, it seems to cause some “confusion.”

"Confusion" is exactly what the creationists motive is in the second law argument.

Although the above arguments do not disprove the creationists thesis that the universe and life were created by a supernatural force at some point, they do indicated a number of logical and scientific problems in the arguments that creation by a supernatural being is somehow required by the laws of thermodynamics.  The arguments of scientific creationists are erroneous in their applications of thermodynamics to evolutionary concepts.  Moreover, the creationists have tried to use thermodynamics, which deals only with net processes, to analyze evolution, which is in its essence a mechanism for the developments of life as we know it.  Since what is principally unknown and controversial is the mechanism of the initiation of life and not the net process, it follows that thermodynamics is truly the red herring of the evolution-creation debate.
To define our terms, in Classical Thermodynamics the term “entropy” is the measure of the amount of energy unavailable for work in a physical system. Left to itself over time, any such system will end with less available energy (i.e., a higher measure of, or increase in, entropy) than when it started, according to the 2nd law. In this classic form, the 2nd law applies specifically to probability of distribution in heat and energy relationships of physical systems, and as such, the entropy involved may be described specifically as thermal entropy.

Similarly, the “generalized 2nd law” applies to probability of distribution matters in Information Theory in such a way that, left to itself over time, the information conveyed by an information-communicating system will end more distorted and less complete than when it began (again, a higher measure of, or increase in, entropy—in this case informational entropy), and likewise, applied to matters Statistics, left to itself over time, the order or regularity of a system will be less than when it began (and again, a higher measure of, or increase in, entropy—in this case statistical entropy).

This is where Mr. Wallace peforms a great deception by leaving having us believe that entropy means the same for all three of these areas.  He misquotes articles from Classical Thermodynamics and then switches to a defintion of entropy that he uses for organized complexity.  In Classical thermodynamics where we can actually measure temperature and make mathematical calculations for loss or gain of heat.  There is no way to measure the increase of complexity in the same sense.

Classical Thermodynamics
entropy-a measure of available energy

Informatino Theory
entropy-a measure of uncertainty (not a measure of disorder)

Statistics
entropy
 

Isaak tells us that creationists “misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.” This writer knows of no creationist who has published this “misinterpretation,” and Isaak neglects to document the “creationists” to whom he would credit this quotation.

Ironically Mr. Wallace goes on to write another anti-evolution essay on thermodynamics, full of the same misconceptions with that very misinterpretation where he tells us:

Evolutionist theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began (assuming it had a beginning). [Timothy Wallace, Thermodynamics vs. Evolutionism, March 5, 1999]
This is a major misrepresentation of entropy that creationists use in their thermodynamics arguement. As we continue we will see how the selectively misquote other scientists as if that is the true meaning. While Isaac Asimov is a renowed scientist, he is a biochemist and not a thermodynamicist. Mr. Wallace is simply using Asimov for a misquote.
 
 However, it is commonly understood by not only by creationists, but by all scientists familiar with thermodynamics, that systems or processes left to themselves invariably tend to move from order to disorder. Consider what Isaac Asimov (a highly respected evolutionist, and ardent anti-creationist) has to say:
(The part Wallace quoted is in black, parts omitted or discrepant are in red)
"Another way of stating the Second Law, then, is: 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly.'
Viewed that way, we can see the Second Law all about us.  We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself, it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily.  Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty.  How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order; how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and every thing deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself-and that is what the Second Law is all about. You can argue, of course, that the phenomenon of life may be an exception. Life on earth has steadily grown more complex, more versatile, more elaborate, more orderly, over the billions of years of the planet's existence.  From no life at all, living molecules were developed, then living cells, then living conglomerates of cells, worms, vertebrates, mammals, finally Man."
[Isaac Asimov, "In the game of energy and thermodynamics you can't even break even", Smithsonian, August, 1970, p. 10]
Thus we observe a virulent anti-creationist stating essentially what Isaak claims is a “creationist misinterpretation” of the 2nd law. 

Although Wallace labels Asimov as a "virulent anti-creationist", this journal recognized him as a "chemist, professor, writer".  Wallace uses this quote in an appeal to authority to have us believe that Asimov sides with Wallace and is showing "essentially what Isaak claims is a 'creationist misinterpretation' of the 2nd law." It is obvious that Wallace picked this quote from some low grade (not to say they all are not) evolution refuter guide . If he would have read the article himself he would see that Asimov in fact supports Isaak's "assertion", and Wallace, by using this quote only verifies it.

Mr. Wallace misses the point when Asimov tells us that its the universe as a whole that is getting disorderly, the universe is analagous to the true isolated system. He also neglects to understand or explain the statement about systems "left to themselves", which Asimov meant as closed systems.

The article was written in a non-technical way to help people understand basic thermodynamic principles. Which is another reason I am guessing Wallace didn't read it, because his rebuttal shows he doesn't understand thermodynamics (whether it is intentional or not is the question). We will see in the rest of his essay of  misquotations and speculations that it is Wallace's mission to confuse with his misunderstanding because the facts do not support his own assertions.

 
Lest there be any doubts, a typical college-level chemistry text book (which doesn’t concern itself with matters of origins and therefore may be considered neutral on the subject) says:
(The part Wallace quoted is in black, parts omitted or discrepant are in red)
"Let us return once again to our ink droplet.  Ink molecules that are spread throughout the entire volume of water constitute a more disordered or random arrangement of molecules than ink molecules concentrated in a small droplike arrangement of molecules than ink molecules concentrated in a small droplike region.  Similarly, as we discussed previously, there is more disorder or randomness to water molecules in the gas state than to water molecules in the liquid.  Therefore, in both diffusion and evaporation the direction of change is toward a state with less order or great randomness.
Scientists use the term entropy to describe the amount of randomness in a system.  The larger the entropy of a system, the less order or more randomness the system has.  We could say that the direction of change in diffusion or evaporation is toward a state of higher entropy. The 'push' behind diffusion and evaporation is the natural tendency for a system to go to a state of higher entropy (see Figure 5-25).
Our discussion of enthalpy and entropy effects is actually quite general.  If we are interested in predicting the possibility of a system undergoing a chemical or physical change, we have to consider how both the enthalpy and entropy would change.  We can say that there is a natural tendency for any system to make a spontaneous change to some state which has (1) a lower potential energy or lower enthalpy and (2) a greater randomness or higher entropy.  Since a spontaneous change is one that can take place by itself,  without work having to be done on the system, diffusion, evaporation, and a ball rolling down a hill are all examples of spontaneous changes."
[Denis M. Callewaert & Julien Genyea, Basic Chemistry: General, Organic, Biological, Worth Publishers, Inc., New York, 1980, pp. 157]

By the title, one can see that this is a text book. It is fairly comprehensive in those three areas of chemistry. Wallace fails to show us the relationship of an ink droplet and evolution, when the above quote describes a physical process and evolution is a physico-chemical process. Also, this definition of entropy is different from the definition of entropy that Mr. Wallace is going to switch to later in his essay. He must have been using the quote in his misconception that evolution is just a random process, and is trying to decieve the reader. There was nothing in this section to show evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.

Since Wallace finds this resource of his "neutral" on matters of origin, he should find this quote noteworthy:

"The complex and precise structure of each individual protein is essential to the survival of the living organism.  During the course of evolution, the structure of individual proteins have been selected to optimize their specific functions. Even slight variations in the structure of a particular protein can lead to enormous consequences...
An amino acid substitution rarely leads to a functionally 'better' protein.  Yet these fare favorable changes are necessary, because eventually they lead to the evolution of organisms that are better adapted to their particular environment, organisms that have a better chance to survive and reproduce.  These better adapted organisms are more likely to thrive and may even compete so successfully with those that do not possess the 'better' protein that the latter organisms may become extinct.
This process of evolution and selection has bestowed on modern organism., including humans, a large number of functional proteins.  Each of these proteins has evolved to the very specific structure it needs to function as it does.  The general process of evolution of protein function has also made more highly evolved organism different in appearance from their predecessors.  The genetic information that each of us has inherited (such as height, a tendency for baldness, or the shape of our ears) is coded in our DNA.  It is DNA that directs the synthesis of proteins in such a way as to give each of us our unique qualities.
Since virtually everything that happens in the body depends on the function of proteins, the study of human biochemistry can ultimately be viewed as the study of proteins and what they do.  As we proceed to look at the functional roles and properties of proteins, we must always bear in mind that it is the highly evolved structure of a protein that determines its very specific function." (my bold)
[Callewaert &  Genyea, 1980, pp. 530-531]
So lest there be any doubts, this typical college-level chemistry text book (which doesn’t concern itself with matters of origins and therefore may be considered neutral on the subject) says evolution still occurs despite what Mr. Wallace may think.
 
It should be clear that the 2nd law of thermodynamics does indeed require that a natural process or system, left to itself, increases in entropy, or randomness, and therefore decreases in order, and—as Asimov put it—“deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself.” Please don’t let the fact escape your notice that Asimov applies this law to “the universe” which pretty much assures us that its application is ... universal (applying to all processes and systems).

It would behove the reader to find this article and read it. It should be very clear that Asimov explains that its the universe as a whole that “deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself”. It should be vary clear that decreases of entropy can be found in the subsystems of the unverser such as: a living cell, your body, the earth, and the solar system. Mr. Wallace and the creationists know this, but make statements like the above just to confuse and mislead.

Open vs. Closed Systems
 

Next, Isaak arrives at the heart of his argument, invoking what has really become a classic—and very misleading—evolutionist tactic: He tells us that the creationists’ error is that “they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system.”

Actually it is a misleading creationist tactic to argue against this "open system" argument instead of getting to what supposedly is the heart of their argument.
 

The basis of his claim is the fact that while the 2nd law is inviolate in an isolated system (i.e., a system in which neither energy nor matter enter nor leave the system—often erroneously called “closed” system), an apparent “violation” of the law can exist in an open system (i.e., a system to which new energy or matter may be added). Isaak tells us “life [is] irrelevant to the 2nd law,” and so is evidently convinced that every living systems is an exception to the 2nd law.

No, not an exception to the 2nd law, but not applicable to the second law.  Mr. Wallace wants to have a word play on the the definition of the 2nd law here.  An open system can exchange energy, it happens all the time.
 

Now, the entire universe is generally considered by evolutionists to be a “closed” (isolated) system, so the 2nd law dictates that within the universe, entropy is increasing. In other words, things are tending to breaking [sic] down, becoming less organized, less complex, more random on a universal scale. This trend (as described by Asimov above) is a scientifically observed phenomenon—i.e., fact, not theory.

Curiously Mr. Wallace acknowoleges this fact of thermodynamics here. But in the first part of his essay and in the remainder, he argues as if this were some sort of "evolutionist speculation". This is getting really silly here.  Within the universe, subsystems such as our galaxy, the solar system, the earth, our bodys, the cells with our bodies, are also building up, becoming organized, becoming complex, becoming ordered.  This is an observed fact as plain as the nose that grows on Mr. Wallaces face. These local decreases in entropy are a trend too.
 

However, here on earth, the popular evolutionary line of reasoning goes, we have an “exception,” because we live in an open system: “The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things,” Isaak says. And indeed, solar energy is added to the open sub-system of the earth continuously. But simply adding raw energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, build-up rather than break-down). If this were true, no scientist would object to the elimination of the ozone, since more raw solar energy would only mean a welcome increase in organized complexity (a hastening of the alleged evolutionary process, as it were) in the world as we know it.

This is simply ridiculusous. The gradual destruction of the ozone is believed to by caused by the reaction of chlorine molecules with the ozone molecules. The chlorine molecules are the result of ultraviolet radiation breaking down chloro-carbon molecules released into the atomosphere by humans. We also get all the raw solar energy we need right now anyway.

Mr. Wallace is either trying to confuse or mislead with this bogus analogy, or he doesnt know what he is talking about.
 

No, we know that raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropy. In fact, by itself, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, first with and then without the addition of solar radiation).

This is misleading. There are some natural process where solar energy increases entropy. The paint on the car is one, by the energy in the ultraviolet wavelengths. However, the breakdown of a wooden fence or animal carcass is caused by bacteria. This decomposition is done with or with out sunlight, the  increase in entropy is the same. The heat energy from infrared wavelengths may provide heat to speed up the break down, but the again, the entropy increase is still the same.

The bottom line is that in order to find temporary decreases in the entropy of a system, there must be an input of energy from outiside the system. That is what the second law says. That energy requried for life on earth to exist, as well as evolution to proceed is provided by the energy found in sunlight.
 

Speaking of the applicability of 2nd law to both “closed” (isolated) and open systems in general, Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms:
[the part Wallace quotes in black, his omissions or discrepancies in red]
"SIR: I am referring to the article entitled 'Physical Chemistry,' C&EN, June 2, page 20.  Toward the end of the article is stated: 'Another area where physical chemistry likely has important biological applications is the study of the properties of steady states far from equilibrium.  These are stable systems that do not follow the second law of thermodynamics; instead they require a continual supply of energy from outside the system to maintain themselves.'
Please be advised that there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics.  Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems.
I recognize that it is very difficult to write an article on as broad a subject as physical chemistry in two pages, and ordinarily I would not bother to point out minor errors.  However, there is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems.  It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.
John Ross
Professor of Chemistry, Harvard University"
[John Ross, "Letters to the Editor", Chemical and Engineering News, July 7, 1980, p. 40]
It is obvious this is a letter to the editor. The article Ross was writing about "Physical Chemistry" was sort of a news article about the latest in equipment and techniques used in the field of physical chemistry. It talked about the areas of Lasers, Theory and modeling, Surfaces, and Biological Applications. It was in biological applications that the author of that article made the statement that Ross was responding to. The error that Ross was correctly pointing out was that by requiring a continual supply of energy, the systems do follow the second law. The reason Ross responded is probably because he had written many papers about far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics and is an expert in that field. Ross agrees with Steiger who says that evolution does not violate the second law, because it receives a continuous input of energy by the sun. That is why there are no known violations. So why does Wallace keep saying there is? Does he know something Ross, a "Harvard Scientist" (although he is now at Stanford as of this writing) doesn't know?
 
So, if the 2nd law is universal (as any scientifically defined “law” must be, and as Ross here confirms), what is it that makes life possible within the earth’s biosphere, appearing to “violate” (or in Isaak’s words, be “irrelevant to”) the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

The answer to this question is very simple, but Mr. Wallace has made it confusing and complicated. Life is possible because we have additional energy coming from outside the biosphere.

So now the question is: Where in the net process of evolution in our biosphere do we find a universal dS < q/T, which would be a violation of the 2nd law that Mr. Wallace keeps telling us there is?

Raw Energy is Not Enough
 
 
 

The fact is, contrary to the simplistic claim often parroted by evolutionists like Isaak, any increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) invariably requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:
  • a “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
  • a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.

Now here is what is to be the heart of  Mr. Wallace thermodynamics argument. He has hoped to confuse the reader enough now to introduce this. There are certain things to be aware of before we continue.

1. He says without being specific here that a "program" and a "mechanism" are all that is needed in addition to and open system and available energy supply.
2. He says that this is required for "organized complexity" but in the parenthesesi says "i.e. decrease in entropy"

We may interpret this to say that all living things have a "program" which I am assuming that Mr. Wallace means is there genome. This "mechanism" I am assuming could be any metabolic pathway to convert energy. He is trying to form a link with classical thermodynamics where there is none.  The only information about the relationship between "order" and "organized complexity" is what Mr. Wallace tell us himself.  Based on his misquotes I find him hardly a credible resource for that information.

Where is his resources for thermodynamics now? Where did he get this information that we have to have these factors? Does he mean to tell us the the thermodynamictists have it all wrong?
 

The earth’s living systems have both of these essential elements. Each living organism’s DNA contains all the code (the “program” or “information”) needed to direct the process of building (or “organizing”) the organism up from seed or cell to a fully functional, mature specimen, complete with all the necessary instructions for maintaining and repairing each of its complex, organized, and integrated component systems. This process continues throughout the life of the organism, essentially building-up and maintaining the organism’s physical structure faster than natural processes (as governed by the 2nd law) can break it down.

 
 
Living systems also have the second essential component—their own built-in mechanisms for effectively converting and storing the incoming energy. Plants use photosynthesis to convert the sun’s energy into usable, storable forms (e.g., proteins), while animals use metabolism to further convert and use the stored, usable, energy from the organisms which compose their diets.

Is he implying that these "built-in mechanisms" are created in each "kind"?
 

So we can see that living things do not in fact “violate” the 2nd law, nor are they “excepted from” or “irrelevant to” the 2nd law, but they actually have built-in programs (information) and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures “in spite of” the 2nd law’s effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies). Every living organism itself is a highly complex and organized creation, able to live within the earth’s “open system” biosphere (the only place in the universe known to man that supports life), by means of a unique, inherent program (information, DNA), plus an inherent energy conversion & storage mechanism (photosynthesis, metabolism).

So why did Mr. Wallace make the statement earlier about "while the 2nd law is inviolate in an isolated system (i.e., a system in which neither energy nor matter enter nor leave the system—often erroneously called “closed” system), an apparent “violation” of the law can exist in an open system (i.e., a system to which new energy or matter may be added)."
 

Order vs. Organized Complexity
 
 
 

Isaak argues that Creationists try to “get around” something by claiming that “the information carried by living things lets them create order...but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order.”
this is in response to the statement of creationsits about things tendintg to disorger
 
 
What Isaak says here reveals some confusion on his part, between simple “order” and “organized complexity.” All living things (down to even a single-celled organism) are highly complex and organized—each component in its proper place and functioning according to its instructions to keep the organism going. They don’t just “happen” in nature—the notion of spontaneous generation was long ago and often disproven [Redi (1688), Spallanzani (1780), Pasteur (1860), and Virchow (1858)], establishing the Law of Biogenesis, which remains confirmed in that man has never observed life coming from anything but life itself, which is not observed to exist at all without all of the above described factors in place in some form.

Here Mr. Wallace is trying to somehow have us believe that "spontaneous generation" is the same as abiogenesis.  First of all they are not the same thing. Secondly abiogenesis is not the same thing as Darwinian evolution.  Mr. Wallace is trying to confuse the reader here by creation strawman analogies.
 

On the other hand, simple “order” such as that found in a snowflake or a crystal, for example, is exceedingly trivial, when compared to the increase in information, organization or complexity that would be required for either spontaneous generation (the beginning of biological evolution), or any form of progressive macro-evolution itself. The formation of molecules or atoms into geometric patterns such as snowflakes or crystals reflects movement towards equilibrium—a lower energy level, and a more stable arrangement of the molecules or atoms into simple, uniform, repeating structural patterns with minimal complexity, and no function. Living things, on the other hand, do not arrive at and maintain their high levels of order, organization, and complexity in order to achieve thermodynamic equilibrium, but are in fact maintaining far from equilibrium conditions in order to arrive at and maintain those levels.

This shows a typicla use of what seems complicated terminology that is nothing more than nonsense. He provides use with no resources for his statements here.  What is the difference between "low energy levels" and "high energy levels"? There is no basic difference in the fact that there is decreases in entropy that occur. The difference is that there are different states and pathways.

non living far from equilibrium conditions happen in nature
 
 

Thus, crystals are not examples of matter forming itself into more organized or more complex structures or systems even remotely parallel to those inherent in living organisms, even though they may certainly reflect “order” in the form of patterns (the very structure of which is both enabled and limited by the molecules which comprise them), and they certainly cannot serve realistically as “proof” that life can therefore create itself.

crystals are expamples of order from disorder
 
 
 

To so erroneously equate mere passive “order” of molecules as they enter a state of energy equilibrium (e.g., the formation of crystals) with a spontaneous, self-induced increase in “organized complexity” (as demanded by evolutionary theory for both the beginning and development of life—and as prohibited by the 2nd law), is to truly misunderstand the 2nd law AND evolution. This seems to be exactly what Isaak has done.

How is development of life prohibited by the 2nd law??? This is where Mr. Wallace confuses processes with the beginnings. The next few misquotes are where Mr. Wallace truly misunderstands the 2nd law, evolution, AND science.
 

Jeffrey Wicken (an evolutionist) does recognize the difference, however, having described it this way:
(The part Wallace quoted is in black, parts omitted or discrepant are in red)
"'Organized' systems are to be carefully distinguished from 'ordered' systems.  Neither kind of system is 'random'; but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an external 'wiring diagram’ with a high information content. Their structures are aperiodic without being random.  Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries functional information.  It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic ‘order’.  As will be discussed, the role of natural selection in evolution is to transform the structurally complex systems generated according to thermodynamic principles into organized systems."
[Jeffrey S. Wicken, "The Generation of Complexity in Evolution", Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol 77, (April 1979), p. 349]
This last sentence that Mr. Wallace left out in his misquote is very important.
"The role of natural selection in evolution is to transform the structurally complex systems generated according to thermodynamic priciples into organized systems."
The task for Mr. Wallace is to clearly point out where and how these systems cannot
 
Nobel Prize winner Ilya Prigogine also has no problem defining the difference, even acknowledging the extreme unlikelihood that the requisite complexity for life could arise from non-life:
(the part Wallace quotes in black, his omissions or discrepancies in red)
"The point is that in a nonisolated system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures.  This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions.
Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures.  The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of ordinary molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable, even on the scale of the billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred.
The conclusion to be drawn from this analysis is that the apparent contradiction between biological order and the laws of physics—in particular the second law of thermodynamic cannot be resolved as long as we try to understand living systems by the methods of the familiar equilibrium statistical mechanics and equally familiar thermodynamics."
[Ilya Prigogine, Gregoire Nicolis and Agnes Babloyantz, "Thermodynamics of Evolution", Physics Today, November, 1972.]

If you haven't figured out from reading the above full quotation why I think this was misquoted then I will help by quoting the subtitle:

"The functional order maintained within living systems seems to defy the Second Law; nonequilibrium thermodynamics describes how such systems come to terms with entropy"
Prigogine, et. al. explain that current methods of classical thermodynamics do not explain abiogenesis very well. This paper is part one of two parts. The second part of the same title is in the December issue. What their work shows is that there is only one type of physical law, but there are different thermodynamic situations such as near and far from equilibrium. In fact they suggest that in far from equilibrium systems, there may be instability that will then spontaneously evolve new structures showing coherent behavior. They do not say that "order" or "organization" cannot spontaneously arise.  What Wallace tries to use his misquotes in his game of semantic smoke and mirrors, distracting us with the difference between "order" and "organization" as he tries to discredit Steiger. If  Wallace would have read the article he would find that it provides compelling evidence that seems to contradicts his issue of mechanisms.

This link provides current information on the research of Ilya Prigogine: Prigogine Center
 

Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen make the same clear distinction:
"A simple illustration of this principle is seen in phase changes such as water transforming into ice.  As ice forms, energy (80 calories/gm) is liberated to the surrounding.  The change in the entropy of the system as the amorphous water becomes crystalline ice is -0.293 entropy units (eu)/degree Kelvin (k). The entropy change is negative because the thermal and configuration* entropy (or disorder) of water is greater than that of ice, which is a highly ordered crystal.  Thus, the thermodynamic conditions under which water will transform to ice are seen from equation 7-9 to be:
-0.293 - (-80/T) > 0                                         (7-10a)
or
      T273K                                                    (7-10b)
For the condition of T < 273K energy is removed from water to produce ice, and the aggregate disordering of the surroundings is greater than the ordering of the water into ice crystals.  This gives a net increase in the entropy of the universe, as predicted by the second law of thermodynamics.
It has often been argued by analogy to water crystallizing to ice that simple monomers may polymerize into complex molecules such as protein and DNA.  The analogy is clearly inappropriate, however. The E + PV term (equation (7-9) in the polymerization of important organic molecules is generally positive (5 to 8 kcal/mole), indicating the reaction can never spontaneously occur at or near equilibrium.  By contrast the E + PV term in water changing to ice is a negative, - 1.33 kcal/mole, indicating the phase change is spontaneous as long as T < 273K, as previously noted. The atomic bonding forces draw water molecules into an orderly crystalline array when the thermal agitation (or entropy driving force, TS) is made sufficiently small by lowering the temperature.  Organic monomers such as amino acids resist combining at all at any temperature, however, much less in some orderly arrangement.”
[C.B. Thaxton, W.L. Bradley, and R.L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Philosophical Library, New York, 1984, pp. 119-120.]

This quote pertained to open systems at or near equilibrium, not open systems at far-from-equilibrium. Which is what is explained in the previous article by Prigogine that Mr.Wallace took a misquote from. This quote is another "filler" in his appeal to authority. This book basically presents the problems in chemical evolution that are not new to those scientists working in that field. The difference in the approach to those problems is that the authors: Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen would rather turn to the supernatural for explanation rather than modern science.  They basically offer the same argument Wallace does, in that chemical evolution looks impossible, and the only alternative is special creation.

There is a major problem with this resource for Mr. Wallace. I found an article where Dr. Bradley discusses the thermodynamic arguments of John Patterson (another of Mr. Wallaces resources), that were used in a debate he had with Tracy Walters. In his critisims of Patterson's arguement not having relevance to life's origins, he seems to clarify that there certainly are problems with evolution and thermodynamics (in that there are questions yet unaswered), but does disagree with the bold accusations of Mr. Wallace, in that it violates the second law, and therefore cannot occur:

"I do not believe that anyone has done the kind of thermodynamic analysis required to determine whether the Second Law of Thermodynamics represents any significant obstacle to biological evolution.  Again, the kind of analysis we did in our book for the origin of life would be useful to quantify the nature and magnitude of the work required for macroevolution and the suitibility of the available energy and structures to do this work.  It is certainly a question that should be purseued."
[Walter Bradley, "No Relevance to the Origin of life", Access Research Network, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1997]
Review of chapter seven by Steiger:  Review of Book: Mystery of Life's Origin
As far as complex molecules not being able to form, consider this link: Are Proteins Too Complex To Evolve?
Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations - Every so often someone comes up with the
statement "the formation of any enzyme by chance is nearly impossible, therefore abiogenesis is impossible." Often they cite as
evidence an impressive-looking, but  ultimately erroneous, probability calculation.
 
Isaak asks, “If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?” By now it should be clear to any objective reader that Isaak’s logic is faulty:
  1. his assumption that “order from disorder” is “ubiquitous in nature” is an error
  2. life’s “order” (better described as “organized complexity”) is possible only because of life’s inherent information and energy conversion mechanisms
  3. the “order” found in non-living natural structures is not simply due to an unaided decrease in entropy, but to a decrease in molecular or atomic energy level, due to external factors (usually temperature and the exisitng [sic] molecular structure of the elements involved).

By now it should be clear to any objective reader that Mr. Wallaces logic is faulty

  1. his assumption that entropy and order mean the same thing in the context of classical thermodyanmics


The Missing Mechanism
 
 

Besides repeating his “misconception” claim, Isaak now goes on to say that “Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations ... Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five ... the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success ... maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don’t violate any physical laws.”

This is where Wallace pulls a fast one.  Even though evolution was based on observations that are verfiable.  He tells us that abecause it cannot be explained or proven by thermodynamic principlbes, it cannot occur.  It just gets more absurd. It seems that all we have to do to allow evolution to "violate" the second law of thermodynamics is say that it is programmed by an intelligent designer, and was created with a mechanism to that allows it to run the program.
 

In the first place, not all evolutionists continue to subscribe to the “small changes between generations” theories (e.g., Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism). There is a substantial number who now advocate the “punctuated equilibria,” “quantum speciation,” or “hopeful monster” scenarios, in which major morphological changes are believed to take place in rare, infrequent, and highly isolated events, separated by long periods of little or no change.

But this still means that life evolved.  How it evolved over millions of years is what is in question.  The change of species over time into new speices is in complete agreement between all "evolutionists". This has nothing to do with thermodynamics other than Mr. Wallaces attempt to show discord amoung scientists to distract us from his failier to show any violations.
 

Secondly, such changes as Isaak’s example of “four or six fingers instead of five” are due to genetic errors (mutations), and contrary to Isaak’s claim, differential reproductive success serves better to weed-out these errors, rather than perpetuate them, which is good, because they are almost invariably harmful, or at the very least neutral, in effect.

Once again Mr. Wallaces omits the factor of natural selection and beneficial mutations.  Isaaks single example was to show that it is these types of mutations which occur are what evolutionary theory says can be selected.  Certanly all mutations will not be selected for, but in rare instances, some will be. Mr. Wallace fails to acknowlege that these mutations can occur.
 

As Ross correctly observed, “there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics.” Yet evolutionary theory demands precisely such violations every step of the way, as the expansion of the “big bang” acquires information, organization, and complexity, forming itself into galaxies, stars, planets, then highly complex amino acids, proteins, DNA—essentially generating greater and greater organization, complexity, and information all by itself, and all in complete contradiction of the best established natural law known to science.

What Mr. Wallace fails to observe is what Ross correctly did: "There are no known violations"!  The only violation here is aggrement with a pecular literal interpretation of the Bible (which has numerous contradictions to many other established laws of science).

Mr. Wallaces fails to describe in each of theses "evolutoinary processes" where we pinpoint that violation. He is generalizing here that we find vilolations over and over again, but it is up to use to find out exactly where.
 

While many evolutionists deny this problem, often dismissing it in the same fashion as Isaak has done (as a mere “creationist misunderstanding”), the fact is that there are evolutionist scientists who at least recognize the problem, and even attempt to deal with it. Consider (again) the words of Ilya Prigogine et al. (the Belgian scientist who won the Nobel Prize in physics for his work in thermodynamics):

What is the problem? That evolution violates the second law? No, the problem is that these scientists understand that evolution occurs, but that the problem is explaining how it occurs according to thermodynamic principles. What we will see is Mr. Wallace like so many other creationists is just going to selectively misquote these scientists.  Like many natural phenonmena that occur in our world, it is difficult to understand and explain how it all works.  Nobody to my knowlege has explain how gravity works, but apples are still falling from trees.

“...The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small.”
Charles J. Smith recognized the challenge posed by the 2nd law of thermodynamics to the most significant unanswered “how and why” of evolutionary theory:
(the part Wallace quotes in black, his omissions or discrepancies in red)
"How has the complex and highly ordered (apparently low entropy) biological state developed, when, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, entropy increases, suggesting a degradation of potential and systems going to states of disorder?  This problem contains two essential elements: (1) is biological order low entropy, and if so, (2) is this a violation of the Second Law?
The thermodynamicist immediately clarifies the latter question by pointing out that the Second Law classically refers to isolated systems which exchange neither energy nor matter with the environment; biological systems are open and exchange both energy and matter. In irreversible thermodynamics, the Second Law is stated specifically in relation to the entropy balance equation:

dS = diS + deS ,

where dS is the change in entropy of the system, deS is the entropy flow from the environment, and diS is the internal entropy dissipation due the system.  The Second Law is then stated as:

diS 0, or diS/dt  0

For isolated systems deS = 0, and dS = diS  0; at the steady state dS = 0 and diS = -deS.  Thus, by coupling an entropy flow from the environment, the entropy of the system may decrease if the flow term compensates for the dissipation.  In fact, this point of total entropy produced compensating for any local decreases was a central theme in a discussion of evolution by Blum (1968).  The Second Law refers in no way to the increase or decrease of dS and deS.
This explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowing of the entropy), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue.  In developing a theory of nonlinear irreversible thermodynamics, Glasdorff and Prigogine (1971) describe how systems which are far from equilibrium may undergo fluctuations whereby the system may be driven to a new state of stability, being possibly associated with the creation of spatial order and increasing entropy production...

[approximately five full pages of discussion]

...It may be possible to treat statistically a large number of organisms, such as a species or a culture, but I think it is remote that it will be brought to bear on the individual organism—that would be ultimate determinism, and we learned in statistical mechanics that this is not possible.
Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology.  I would go further, and include the problem of meaning and value.
'If we reach into the problems of value, we shall begin to invade a territory reserved for philosophy.  Shall we ever be able to cross this border and push the limits of science in this direction? This is for the future to answer.' Brillouin (1962)”
[Charles J. Smith, "Problems with Entropy in Biology”, BioSystems, Vol. 7, (1975), pp. 259-265]

In this paper, Smith addresses problems using entropy as a measure of biological order.  He proposes a general notation that includes measures of order of a biological system in the entropy balance equation of irreversible thermodynamics. The first sentence in Wallace's quote is where Smith, like Steiger and every non-creationis, is pointing out that there is no violation of the second law with decreasing entropy, because that aspect is in reference to isolated systems, and biosystems are open systems. But Mr. Wallace left out that last part. Then Mr. Wallace takes the second sentence and dishonestly adds it to the first one as if Smith is saying that open systems still pose a problem.  As you can read, the second sentence was in regard to the entropy balance equation not being able to explain abiogenesis. Smith then spends the next four pages discussing different approaches that address the problems with measures of order and far from equilibrium thermodynamics. The last quote was taken at the end of his paper where he is summarizing the problems of assigning meaning and value to information theory using thermodynamics. Wallace dishonestly presents all three sentences as if they all ran together. He has the nerve to falsely accuse Steiger of distorting and perverting the true nature of thermodynamics, and then blatantly does it himself! Is this his idea of intellectual honesty? I hope the reader can see the great difficulty in debating or rebutting this type illogical and deceptive presentation. Its like trying to explain to a drunk that those pink elephants are really not there.  How do you reason with people who is irrational?
 

George Gaylord Simpson and W.S. Beck (both solid and respected evolutionists) also understood the problem, saying:
(the part Wallace quotes in black, his omissions or discrepancies in red)
"We have repeatedly emphasized the fundamental problems posed for the biologist by the facts of life's complex organization.  We have seen that organization requires work for its maintenance and that the universal quest for food is in part to provide the energy needed for this work.  But the simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs work, but he neither creates nor maintains organization.  The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed.
Our treatment of the subject of genetics was presented in this light.  We envisaged embryological development as leading to complex adult organization, and the study of heredity proper as the search for the inherited information that specified how the work of development must proceed. This search led us to the nucleus and its chromosomes, which proved to be the carriers of the inherited specifications ultimately responsible for the organization of the living system."
G.G. Simpson and W.S. Beck, Life: An Introduction to Biology, Harcourt, Brace, and World, New York, 1965, p. 466]

This is a text book on biology. The quote is actually taken from a chapter about adaptation, specifically addressing how natural selection is the mechanism to create information. I would like to quote other sections of the book to show Simpson and Beck's true perspective about evolution and thermodynamics:

"The change in organisms over long periods of time is, of course, organic evolution. Since Darwin, few biologists (and those few surely deluded) have doubted that all the millions of species of plants and animals have arisen from a remote, single common ancestry by a natural process acting through eons of time.  The reasons for that conclusion are multiple and complex—it is, indeed, their multiplicity and complexity that makes them absolutely convincing.  Evolution is the most general, pervasive theme in the whole drama of life.  It is, on that account, also the central, recurrent theme of this book, and the reasons why evolution is an inescapable conclusion will emerge bit by bit as we take up its different aspects."
[Simpson & Beck, 1965, pp. 11-12]

"In fact, the flow of energy in a community is not a cycle at all It is a one-way sequence in which vital energy, like all energy, follows the second law and becomes continuously less available.12
Since communities do keep going, and have for over a billion years, energy is obviously coming in to them continually from an outside source to compensate for what has been lost.  The source is the sun, and it too, is subject to the second law.
12 Some authors of popular books claim that life does not follow the second law and draw questionable philosophical and even religious conclusions. Such authors have not thought the problem through."
[Simpson & Beck, 1965, pp. 640-641]

I think it is fair to say that Simpson and Beck find Steiger's perspective of thermodynamics and evolution more agreeable than Wallace's.  It seems Simpson would suggest that Mr. Wallace has not thought the problem through.
 
Angrist and Hepler reiterate the unlikely nature of life’s beginning according to evolutionary assumptions, stating:
(The part Wallace quoted is in black, parts omitted or discrepant are in red)
"Information theory techniques have also been applied to the problem of the origin of life on earth.  Answers are obtained fairly directly, but because so many quantities have to be estimated the results are not quantitatively reliable.
Life, the temporary reversal of a universal trend toward maximum disorder, was brought about by the production of information mechanisms. In order for such mechanisms to first arise it was necessary to have matter capable of forming itself into a self reproducing structure that could extract energy from the environment for its first self-assembly.  Directions for the reproduction of plans, for extraction of energy and chemicals from the environment, for the growth sequence and the mechanism for translating instructions into growth all had to be simultaneously present at that moment.  This combination of events has seemed an incredibly unlikely happenstance and often divine intervention is prescribed as the only way it could have come about.
People who play Russian roulette have a feeling that an event with a probability of 1/6 can't happen - at least on the first chance.  More rational people have the same general philosophy about unlikely events, although most of us like the probability of an unpleasant event to be much smaller than 1/6. In our everyday life we are being reasonable when we regard an event with a probability of one part in a million million as so unlikely as to be impossible.  But everyday notions of the impossibility of highly improbable events cannot be carried over into discussion of the origins of life.  From a statistical point of view, life could have originated at any instant in a period of time longer than a billion years.  Further, the origin of life was not limited to just one spot (unless it be the Garden of Eden), but could have begun almost anywhere on the earth. Under these conditions, an event with a probability of one part in a million million would have occurred many times, even though it is reasonable for us to regard such an event as presently impossible." [my emphasis]
[Stanley W. Angrist and Loren G. Helper, Order and Chaos. New York: Basic Books, Inc., (1967) pp. 203-204]

This book is about the laws of energy and lives of some of the men who contributed to them. The first eight chapters of this book are about the technical applications associated with thermodynamics. The last two chapters discuss the cultural implications. Wallace's out of context quote comes from one of the last chapters titled "demons, poetry and life". Reading the quote when it is in context it seems to agree with Mr. Isaak.  But statistics and probability mean nothing to Wallace unless it serves his purpose. Abiogenesis according to the second law may be improbable, but not impossible.  There is more discussion about apparent violations by life of the second law in this chapter. In the chapter conclusion, the authors point out, what Isaak and most all scientists admit:

"We have asked a lot of questions in this chapter—far more than we have answered.  We may have pointed out some of the answers but there is little that we can say with complete confidence about thermodynamics and life."
Both admit that they don't have all the answers, unlike Wallace who thinks he does but can't seem to show how evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. But this book was written in 1967, there have been many technological advances since then. He exploits the admittance of this lack of confidence in explanation of abiogenesis to advance his misconceptions of evolution and science.
 
Blum also sees the proposed scenario as more of a problem than a credible explanation:
(The part Wallace quoted is in black, parts omitted or discrepant are in red)
Few of those concerned with the problem of the origin of life seem to have given more than passing attention to the question of mobilization of free energy for the reproduction of the original living systems.7 Since the reproduction of proteins could not have gone on without a means of energy mobilization, it might almost be necessary to assume that these two processes had their origin at the same time, unless indeed the latter actually antedated the former.  In all modern organisms energy metabolism is so closely dependent upon the existence of proteins, catalysis by enzymes being an intimate part, that it is difficulty to see how they could have evolved separately.
At any rate, the problem of energy supply for the first living organisms seems fundamental, and we must make some shift to attack it. Since there is no direct correlation between free energy and rate of reaction, many energy-rich compounds could have been left behind in the general movement toward greater entropy. Presumably some of these could have been utilized as sources of free energy for the synthesis of the first proteins, whether the latter were formed within or outside living systems.

Of course it is ridiculous to suppose that the first living organisms required more than a tiny fraction of what is used at present, but on the other hand it is ridiculous to assume that more than a small fraction of the available carbon was present as energy-rich compounds useable by living systems at the time of their origin. There would seem to be no way of replenishing the supply of such compounds except by capturing energy of sunlight by means of some photosynthetic process.
If the first organisms could have gained their energy from inorganic sources, the supply might have been greater, but we have even less basis for such estimates.  Certainly11 the supply was not inexhaustible, and sooner or later some mechanism for capturing the energy of sunlight had to be evolved, if life were to continue.  However we regard the problem, we must admit that photosynthesis of some kind, perhaps very different from any we know today, arose very early in the course of organic evolution, if indeed it was not involved from the beginning.
Harold F. Blum, Time's Arrow and Evolution, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 3rd Ed. 1968, pp. 160, 165 & 166]
“Since the reproduction of proteins could not have gone on without a means of energy mobilization, it might almost be necessary to assume that these two processes had their origin at the same time ... the problem of energy supply for the first organism seems fundamental ... There would seem to be no way of replenishing the supply of such compounds except by capturing energy of sunlight by means of some photosynthetic process ... we must admit that photosynthesis of some kind ... arose very early in the course of organic evolution, if indeed it was not involved from the beginning.” [H.F. Blum (evolutionist), Time’s Arrow and Evolution, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 3rd Ed., 1968, pp. 160, 165 &166]
 
 
And Patterson also concedes that this issue poses a challenging question:
(The part Wallace quoted is in black, parts omitted or discrepant are in red)
"Closely related to the apparent 'paradox' of ongoing uphill processes in nonliving systems is the apparent 'paradox' of spontaneous self-organization in nature.  It is one thing for an internally organized, open system to foster uphill processes by tapping downhill ones, but how did the required internal organization come about in the first place?  Indeed the so-called dissipative structures that produce uphill processes are highly organized (low entropy) molecular ensembles, especially when compared to the dispersed arrays from which they assembled.  Hence, the question of how they could originate by natural processes has proved a challenging one.  As before, creationist exhortations about violations of the second law need not confuse the issue because local decrees in entropy during self-organization do not imply an such contradiction.  Overcompensating increases in entropy elsewhere need only be coupled with the self-organization process.  Again, the paradox is only illusory and has only to do with how self-organization occurs, not whether it does."
[J.W. Patterson, "Thermodynamics and Evolution", Scientists Confront Creationism, L. R. Godfrey, Ed., W. W. Norton & Co., New York, 1983, p. 110]
If Wallace had continued to read the next three sentences he would see that it is actually natural laws that support the scientific explaination of evolution. He can not seem to understand that his argument on thermodynamics is not only wrong, it is irrelevant as to whether evolution happens or not. The issue is, as pointed out in all his references, is how evolution happened.
"While the 2nd law of thermodynamics in its classical application may 'permit' the necessary isolated reduction in thermal entropy required for—and theorized in—evolution, the generalized second law effectively prohibits the existence of a scientifically observable biological mechanisms required for beginning and/or perpetuating the necessary—and sustained—reduction in both informational entropy and statisical entropy."
This shows that Wallace has no idea about what he is talking about. Actually, he does, because the defintion for these terms are a complete fabrication of his own delusion of false attributes to thermodynamics. The generalized second law says nothing of the sort. He has no clue as to what "scientifically observable" means, so how can he say they are required? The problem is that mechanisms and reductions of entropy do exist, but he says they are prohibited. When he applies this misconception to his evolution strawman, I am sure he can confuse the leading scientists he appeals to authority with.
 
The above statements—all by respected leaders in evolutionary thought—more than adequately document the fact that natural law stands in the way of a truly scientific explanation for any evolutionary process. While the 2nd law of thermodynamics in its classical application may “permit” the necessary isolated reductions in thermal entropy required for—and theorized in—evolution, the generalized second law effectively prohibits the existence of a scientifically observable biological mechanism(s) required for beginning and/or perpetuating the necessary—and sustained— reductions in both informational entropy and statistical entropy. The above (evolutionist) authors seem able and willing to recognize this problem, Isaak’s failure to do so notwithstanding.

If a person goes to the trouble of actually reading these articles, one will find that they truly are scientific explanations.  The problem for Mr. Wallace is that they are not undeniable proof for evolution, which is what he thinks is needed for a scientific explanation.

We can see that Mr. Wallace is only building his case on misquotes and ignorance to thermodynamics. The authors he misquoted see no problem in the occurence of evolution. There is only a problem in describing how it occured. There is not violation of any laws in any of the processes that Mr. Wallace implies. He seems to be unwilling to recognize there is no problem.
 

Here, the best offered to us by the leading evolutionary thinkers and scientists (at least the ones who acknowledge the problem) is: “The probability...is vanishingly small; the explanation...is not...satisfying, because it still leaves open ... one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology; the fundamental problems posed for the biologist by the fact of life’s complex organization... the work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed; this combination of events has seemed an incredibly unlikely happenstance and often divine intervention is prescribed as the only way it could have come about; the problem of energy supply for the first organism seems fundamental ...we must admit that photosynthesis of some kind ... arose very early in the course of organic evolution, if indeed it was not involved from the beginning; ...how did the required internal organization come about in the first place? ...the question of how they could originate by natural processes has proved a challenging one...”

Misquoting, distortion, and misunderstanding. What this above paragraph of Mr. Wallace is the best evidence offered to us to support creationism as a scientific theory. There is not problem other than the one in the minds of the creationsists whose logic allows them to reference articles in support of evolution, but authors who acknowlege the fact of evoltion, but somehow have it all wrong anyway.

Denial is Neither Scientific Nor Honest (which is why creationism is not science)
 

The bottom line here is that evolutionary theory does indeed violate the principle of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Neither Isaak nor any evolutionist authority has succeeded in proving the theory a practical possibility (let alone a reality), and only a few are objective (and/or honest) enough to acknowledge the problem, which is so confounding that no one seems to have even come up with a credible subsidiary theory to deal with it, or it surely would have been well documented by now!

The bottom line here is that Mr. Wallace has failed to show us where "evolutionary theory does indeed viloate the principle of the 2nd law of thermodynamics" with anything more than his say so.

Neither he nor any creationist has succeeded in proving their theory (where evolution is dS<q/T) is just a fantasy, and none are honest enough to acknowelge the problem, which is not surprising since all they have to come up with are metaphors and misquotes to deal with it, for surely they would have been able to find some documentation by now!
 

Using natural processes alone, there’s just no explaining how the complex, information-intense organization of even single-celled life and its uniquely inherent and complex processes could have emerged from non-life in the first place, and then could continue to fly in the face of natural law with untold increases in information, complexity and organization to yield all the flora and fauna varieties known to have existed.

The scientific explanaintion would be: mutation, natural selection, and 3.5 billion years.

Of course, Mr. Wallace will argue that mutations either do not increase information, or they are either harmful or not beneficial. Secondly that natural selection only selects from information already in the gene pool, not from "new" information. Lastly, he will say that the earth is only about 10,000 years old. The first two misconceptions are dealt with here: Evolution has never been observed.  He did not present any information to refute the age of the earth, but here are links that deal with elsewhere.
 
 
 

Rather than face the challenge, Isaak has invoked the popular evolutionist claim that evolution is “irrelevant to” the 2nd law on the grounds of an imaginary “open system clause.” The leading authorities in evolutionary theory aren’t so simplistic in their treatment of the problem. Clearly, the “misunderstanding” of thermodynamics (and evolutionary theory itself) lies with Isaak, not with creationists, who rightly point out this serious challenge posed by nature to the evolutionary faith.

Actually, rather than accept the fact that there is no challenge, Mr. Wallace has invoked the popular creationist claim that there must be a "program" to direct change and growth, and a mysterious energy "conversion mechanism" to allow it to happen.

Evolutionary theory rejects a "program" must be present. This seems to be along the lines of intellegent design theory. Mr. Wallace fails to present any evidence to support that theory other than his amaizemtn that life too complicated to just "have happend all by itself".

There is a mechanism to convert energy in evolutionary processes, but how that mechanism works is not yet fully known. But this does not change the way evolution works. Noone yet knows why masses have an attraction to each other in the theory of gravity. It was once thought that the proton, neutron, and electron were the smallest subatomic particles of the atom. It has been discovered that there are smaller particles yet. Does that mean that we should reject atomic theory?