Agreed.
The bottom line is that every process increases the entropy of the universe. The problem comes down to boundries. If I fill up my car tire with air (and ONLY look at the tire as the system) then I could be fooled into saying that this is reverse entropy, but that would be wrong. What has happened is I decreased the entropy of the air in the tire but the overall process has increased the entropy of the universe.
In that case (for the folks who don't quite understand) it's easy to see that there was energy spent not only compressing the air, but keeping the hose pressurized (say, at a gas station) until you drove up. (IOW it leaks out and has to be constantly repressurized.) IN any case it's plain to see that energy was spent developing that pressure in the hose. And since, as we know, there is no lossless machine, there will always be more energy spent than the energy given back to you in the form of pressurized air (which is ideally equal to the pressure you lost). Therefore there was a net loss "across the system boundary". So, like you say, even though those air molecules in your tire can be called "more orderly" (perhaps this just means that, on average, they are closer together) then certainly there was no entropy reversal.
When there is a frost if you only look only at the frost you could be fooled into thinking that this is reverse entropy. What has actually happened is that the water that made up the frost has decreased in entropy but the overall process has incresed the entropy of the universe.
That's a good one. I wouldn't have thought of this. Let's see if I can reason it out. (I mean I already know you're right because I know the laws of thermodynamics simply can't be violated.) What you're saying is that, at warmer conditions, the dew would simply settle as liquid water. But in the case where the leaf temp. is below freezing, that condensate will form ice crystals, which, like the case of pressurized air, is more "ordered" and seems to imply a reversal of entropy. However, the energy which was present at the system boundary (the surface of the leaf) is heat lost from the leaf as it dissipates into the cold air (radiates is probably a better word.) And the source of that heat is (a) the warmth of sunlight given to the plant during the day plus (b) the warmth of the ground water soaked up by the plant. So although the net energy of the larger system (sun/ground/atmosphere) is approx zero for this particular case of heat exchange, it's definitely a loss for the leaf; therefore the net energy across the system boundary is negative (a loss). Therefore the "order" added to the crystals came at a cost. Therefore entropy was not violated.
Both of those examples are good for talking about living cells (or tissues or whatever) since the air pressure case is analogous to gas exchange during respiration (per the law of partial pressures) and the "order" given to the water is analogous to the osmotic pressure across a semipermeable membrane (cell membrane).
Call this peer review (dope slapping the Creationists, heh heh), but all this is for the casual readers who never studied or don't remember this stuff.
What always amuses me about this silly argument is it shoots at the wrong target. The process that reduces entropy of an organism is surely its development as an embryo, not any tiny difference between an adult and the DNA of its gametes? Nobody argues that embryonic development "violates the 2nd Law" or something, yet THAT is the step in the lifecycle of an organism in which order increases.
I'm sure I brought that up before, in some other thread where wellwisher was no doubt railing about entropy reversal (continually ignoring system boundaries) and you could just hear a pin drop after I mentioned it.
Of course, the Creationists should have no problem accepting the flow of nutrients into the embryo. But the
complexity that unfolds is another story. It's completely a systemic process related not only to the codes in the DNA or the stem cells, but also the hormones involved.