Entropy is a physical category. Disorder is an aesthetic category, not a physical one. There is no such thing as “order” that does not require a conscious observer to interpret it as such with logical categories. Appeals to the contrary depend primarily on appeals to metaphysics or faith, typically in the forms of neoplatonism and miracles. Start at 6:20:
If you’re looking for exceptions to the 2nd law in order to argue the second premise of my argument against the anthropic principle, you will probably want to look through this paper:
Claims of exceptions to the second law of thermodynamics are generally met with extreme skepticism that is quite reasonable given the great confidence placed in the second law. But what specifically is the basis for that confidence? The perspective from which we approach experimental or theoretical results that call into question the absolute status of the second law depends greatly on our understanding of why it must be true. For example, a belief that there are solid theoretical arguments demonstrating that the second law must be true leads to a very different perspective than a belief that the law is simply a generalization of empirical observations. This paper will briefly survey and examine some of the basic arguments on which our confidence in the second law might be based, to help provide a well-informed perspective for evaluating the various claims presented at this conference.
The second law of thermodynamics is one of the most fundamental and wellestablished principles of physics. Although originally formulated as simply a generalization of observational experience about the way in which heat flows and our inability to construct perpetual motion machines of the second kind, it has attained a status and domain of application that extends far beyond its direct observational foundations. This status is conveyed in Eddington’s well-known statement: “The law that entropy always increases—the second law of thermodynamics—holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature.” 
Why Do We Believe in the Second Law?
Todd L. Duncan
This is a pet peeve of mine, so I thought the context of yesterday’s post would be a good opportunity to bring it out.