"The entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium."
This is why, if you leave a shed alone in the wilderness for a year, you wouldn't expect to come back to find it having spawned a second floor. Instead, you'd expect it to be in disrepair. This is why smoke rises out of a pot, and why the universe is expanding. Nature spreads itself out, gets more complicated, and more disorderly.
This scientific law is absolutely contradicted by a big bang/evolution mindset, which contends that order actually increased over time! In other words, Mumblefratz, you are putting your faith in the idea that everything we know about reality was put on hold when it was generated, and entropy actually reversed.
This post is simply because I can't resist pointing out your out of context use of the second law of thermodynamics. Really, the important part of the law in this case is, "...an isolated system which is not in equilibrium..." Now, the universe is effectively finite (even if it is really infinite, it's effective thermally connected extent is limited by the speed of light and the age of the universe) so it is an isolated system which is not in thermal equilibrium - meaning that the entropy of the known universe must increase over time. Any decrease would violate thermodynamics. However, if you take any proper subset of the universe, you are no longer talking about a truly isolated system, and so the 2nd law is at best an approximation.
For example, let's take the subset of the universe that is the Earth. It is not even remotely an isolated system - there is a constant energy exchange between the Earth and its surroundings (an influx of energy from the sun, energy loss through mostly infrared radiation into space, etc). This means that you cannot apply the second law of thermodynamics to Earth as a whole. There is no contradiction between thermodynamics and life or even evolution. Earth is not an isolated system, and it has a constant influx of energy, so it's entirely possible for the entropy of all of or parts of Earth to decrease.
To go even farther, let's assume that Earth really were in perfect isolation from the rest of the universe. Life and evolution would still be perfectly consistent with the laws of thermodynamics. How, you ask? Well, let's say life develops and evolves in one place - which means a local reduction in entropy; as long as entropy rises by a greater extent in the rest of the system (Earth), then everything is in order (pardon the pun). This isn't infinitely sustainable (but really, nothing is) because eventually the system will reach equilibrium.
And, now that I'm posting anyway, I may as well throw in my opinion of M/String-Theory. I think they're extremely interesting ideas that are worth exploring, for several reasons: they somehow manage to intrigue more of the general population than most of physics/science does, and that's a great thing in my opinion. Also, even if they turn out to be wrong or we can't prove them, their development has resulted in mathematical tools that can be applied to a lot of other questions in physics, and have allowed us to solve previously unsolvable problems. Another reason is that even if we cannot really search for evidnece for them now, we can in theory - and hopefully will be able to in the future. It would be shortsighted of us to only research what we can test now. The Higgs Boson was proposed as a solution to the mass problem well before we had any way of testing its validity - its first real test will be the collisions in the LHC once it starts running. No one will build the next multi-billion dollar science experiment if no scientists can intrigue politicians with what we might find, or why it might be useful.