“But local order is all evolution would require.”
In order to test whether evolution can occur in a closed system, it would have to be replicated. Since it has not been replicated, until it does, we cannot say that ‘evolution only requires local order’.
Which is why the 2nd Law is still applicable unless proven that evolution only requires local order, and somehow increases general disorder in a system.
That objection doesn't make sense. Order is either local or global. If evolution required global order to increase, that would be identical to saying that it required time to run backwards. Therefore, if evolution requires any kind of order to increase, it can only require local order to increase.
To speak concretely, the objection is to (e.g.) non-living matter organizing itself into living matter. That's a local increase in order, but is not ruled out by the 2nd Law because there is a net input of energy to the system; it's not closed.
Which is why the 2nd Law is still applicable unless proven that evolution only requires local order, and somehow increases general disorder in a system.
Everything that happens increases general disorder in a closed system. (If it doesn't, it doesn't happen. "Time passes" is another way of saying "the total disorder of the universe [or any other closed system] increases".)
The 2nd Law argument is a bad one, and shouldn't be used.
The Second Law kicks in quickly enough when something dies. And it's at work while it's still alive as evidenced in the process of aging.
The second law is working against life even now when it's established.
It's unreasonable to assume that whatever chemical reactions were necessary to become life could overcome that second law and develop to the level of complexity necessary to explain the variety of life here on earth today could overcome that second law in the first place.