Talk:Creation-evolution controversy/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Removed section

This was inserted:

Thermodynamics in the creation-evolution debate

There are numerous problems with this:

  1. Many of the sites (AiG and talkorigins) are already included in the links section. Subpages are inappropriate.
  2. The vanity link is entirely inappropriate -- the user's own advocacy.
  3. The references don't seem to be supported by the article itself. The author should consider adding to the article rather than the links section.

The final link was retained as it is a novel resource. Everything else was removed.

--ScienceApologist 19:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "vanity link"? This appears to be a neologism. Note the web page you called "vanity" has over a dozen references and existed well before I entered into the Wikipedia thermodynamics entry. It is not about the "user's own advocacy," the web page simply presents the facts and you can look up the references if you wish (by the way, all the links were made by somebody and I suggest you confer the genetic fallacy; by your logic you might be committed to remove the Understanding the Ontological Argument from the ontological argument Wikipedia entry even though I don't recall ever putting it there [it is on very many other web listings also, so feel free to e-mail those people in removing it as well if you have a grudge against my website]). Indeed, I am skeptical you could find anything in the link you could honestly disagree with anyway. And second, if you thought the links were inappropriate, why the in the world did you recommend to me to put the section here? It's been on thermodynamics (where the straw poll currently has only a very narrow lead in leaving the links out, 7 to 6), until someone recommended to put it on a creationist entry. I did that, and then you removed it saying I should put it in the creation-evolution controversy section. And then you removed that too. For crying out loud, where should the link section regarding this significant minority view be placed? --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Please see WP:VANITY for information on why your webpage link must go. If you would like to include material you wrote there directly in these articles, that is acceptable (since you are the author), but links to those as decent authorative sources does not conform to the standards of WP:Verifiability and WP:NOR. It has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree with what you are saying. We probably should get rid of the link on ontological argument too. I'll let them know over there.
As to why I directed you here, the subject of the Second Law of Thermondynamics creationist arguments definitely are the place in Wikipedia where such issues are discussed. Right now the explanation is rather incidental and probably could use some expansion. I would encourage you to look at clarifying and editting the prose of this article that deals with the subject. I must warn you, there is a substantial amount of what I see as incorrect (or at least very biased POV) on the webpage you wrote. Nevertheless, I think you have a good understanding of the conflict and might be able to add to this article. I do not think your link section is worthy of inclusion in this encyclopedia for the reasons I listed above (which you still haven't addressed entirely).
You may have to rethink your position that this "link section" is worthy of inclusion anywhere in this encyclopedia. Certainly I agree that creationists make arguments about the second law of thermodynamics. Look at what is discussed about that here on this page and see if you can add or clarify there. Beware of feelings of ownership. All of our work here is subject to editting and removal as the encyclopedia develops, so your insistence that this work of yours belongs "somewhere" is perhaps misplaced.
--ScienceApologist 19:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
There are a number of problems here. You have failed to explained why the links do not qualify has valid sources. Why are some creationist links valid and others are not? Why does the link I put forth (the one correcting misrepresentation of creationist positions) qualify as "vanity" link? The web page does not put forth an advertisement of yours truly, and it contains over a dozen citations to support the point regarding things as what the creationist position is (thus if the web page were a Wikipedia entry, it would fit pretty well with Wikipedia policy on citing your sources and would not be original research). You are going to have to explain very carefully how this link violates Wikipedia policy regarding WP:Verifiability and WP:NOR (note: to exacerbate matters for you those policies usually apply to Wikipedia entries, nowhere is it said they apply to links, otherwise there a good many links that should be removed from Wikipedia, including some of those on the creation-evolution entry).
You said, "worthy of inclusion in this encyclopedia for the reasons I listed above (which you still haven't addressed entirely)" because you still haven't described those reasons entirely. Your objections are strained and vague, without satisfactory elucidation. As I asked previously (and you still not have answered), exactly why is it a vanity link? And why remove the web page on the ontological argument? Do you just have a grudge against a fellow editor (me) or do you have a legitimate reason why this particular web page is no longer worthy? If so, your going to need to explain yourself very carefully. --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Addendum You said, "I must warn you, there is a substantial amount of what I see as incorrect (or at least very biased POV) on the webpage you wrote." Really? Please quote one specific example. --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Why are some creationist links valid and others are not? -- all the links were from AiG. We already link to AiG. No need to link again. --ScienceApologist 00:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Why does the link I put forth (the one correcting misrepresentation of creationist positions) qualify as "vanity" link? -- because you made it and it is not a resource that qualifies under WP:Verifiability. If you believe there are things on that page you want to include in Wikipedia, include them directly, do not link to the page. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. There are plenty of precendents I can point to removing vanity linking to personal webpages. If you think this is inappropriate, start and WP:RfC. --ScienceApologist 00:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you just have a grudge against a fellow editor (me) or do you have a legitimate reason why this particular web page is no longer worthy? -- External links and references are supposed to represent verifiable, high-quality resources that are used and might be considered encyclopedic resources. I'm sorry, your personal webpage does not qualify as this. Again, if you don't believe me, start an RfC. --ScienceApologist 00:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Really? Please quote one specific example. -- Here are two: You seem to have some confusion about the definition of entropy. in particular you use the thermodynamics definition but ignore the statistical mechanics definition. You state things like no one has proposed a process that doesn't conform to Morris' criteria. I can give you one right off the top of my head: gravitational collapse coupled with cooling decreases the entropy of the body which is collapsing. --ScienceApologist 00:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Granted, I made the link. But that is irrelevant. The link is not about yours truly (i.e. a "personal web page"), it is about the topic at hand: creationism. Please read WP:VANITY again and please quote a specific section of it to support your removal of the link. The origin is irrelevant (confer the genetic fallacy) the information presented in the web page is relevant, accurate and well-cited.
And you have failed to respond to this below:
note: to exacerbate matters for you those policies usually apply to Wikipedia entries, nowhere is it said they apply to links, otherwise there a good many links that should be removed from Wikipedia, including some of those on the creation-evolution entry
And even if the policies you stated did apply, it isn't clear how they would prevent the legitimacy of this link. A number of links are much less verifiable than the link I put forth. You seem to once again ignore that the web page has over a dozen verifiable citations with which you can use to verify. So you have not explained how the web page would not meet WP:Verifiability even if this policy did apply.
Regarding your disagreements.
You seem to have some confusion about the definition of entropy. in particular you use the thermodynamics definition but ignore the statistical mechanics definition.
Granted, for sake of space the web page does not include all definitions of entropy or everything about thermodynamics. Instead the web page explicitly states to provide a brief scientific introduction. So what's the big deal? Virtually any pro-creationist or anti-creationist web page regarding thermodynamics invariably leaves some things out. An entire college semester course could be devoted to thermodynamics. I don't see how this particular omission is particularly problematic.
You state things like no one has proposed a process that doesn't conform to Morris' criteria. I can give you one right off the top of my head: gravitational collapse coupled with cooling decreases the entropy of the body which is collapsing.
That may well be an example of decreasing entropy, but is this an example of organized complexity (i.e. the kind of complexity found in automobiles, photocopiers and single-celled organisms)? I think not. It seems you did not read the web page very carefully. To quote:
Another criticism is that there are examples of self-organization in the real world that involve increasing order without the all four criteria, such as the formation of snowflakes (no “program” in that case). Again, this does not attack the actual position. The kind of order being referred to is not geometric regularity (like that of a snowflake) but organized complexity, or functional information.[citation provided] (Examples of things containing organized complexity include automobiles, photocopiers, and single-celled organisms.) A better counterexample to refute the real creationist position would be to point out a case where an increase in organized complexity occurs but without the four criteria.
A collapsing body is no more an example of organized complexity than a snowflake or convectional currents. I suggest you read more carefully, since misconstruals are tragically easy to make (as you have just demonstrated). --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a quote directly from WP:VANITY:

# The insertion of links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages. (Vanity links.)

This is why your link is an inappropriate addition to this page. --ScienceApologist 20:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

  • An entire college semester course could be devoted to thermodynamics. I don't see how this particular omission is particularly problematic. -- by leaving out the definition of entropy from statisical mechanics you ignore one of the fundamental points of the Third Law of Thermodynamics. For example, you claim in your article that a hot dense state has less energy than a cold undense state, ignoring that a crystal at absolute zero is the case where entropy is the lowest in nature. --ScienceApologist 20:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • organized complexity -- this is a neologism and is irrelevant as there is no scientific definition of this. It is basically a creationist invention and does not conform to any scientific definition of complexity. Therefore the description is extra-scientific and based on nothing that I can comment on as a scientist. You can continue to promote pseudoscience, but it should not be included in Wikipedia. --ScienceApologist 20:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
As I have said many times, this is not a personal web page. The web page may be written by a person (no surprise there), but it is not about a person; ergo it is not a personal web page. You have failed to explain why this is a personal web page.
You insinuate I am promoting pseudoscience. How? Perhaps because the link is pseudoscience (though you have failed to explain how, since it does not endorse creationism). But if that is true, should we not remove all creationist links? Again, your objections appear strained and a bit too vague. --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Now for your objections regarding the content of the web page itself.
by leaving out the definition of entropy from statisical [sic] mechanics you ignore one of the fundamental points of the Third Law of Thermodynamics
Again, so what? The section was only meant to be a brief scientific introduction and was never meant to be an exhaustive source of information on thermodynamics. As I said, an entire college semester course could be devoted to thermodynamics. All web pages on creationism and thermodynamics are bound to leave something out anyway. Thus, you have not shown why this omission is particularly problematic. And again, you failed to point to any information that is inaccurate.
organized complexity -- this is a neologism and is irrelevant as there is no scientific definition of this. It is basically a creationist invention and does not conform to any scientific definition of complexity.
Fine, but that would be problematic for the creationist, not for the web page. The web page describes the creationist position but does not endorse it. It has disclaimers as, "This not to say that this creationist claim is correct, only that if one is to criticize it one should attack the position creationists actually hold." And your neologism objection does not change the fact that your proposed counterexample (the collapsing body) fails to succeed against the actual creationist position (which, if you recall, was the only reason why I mentioned organized complexity in this discussion section). --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

A personal webpage is a webpage that is the sole property of a person and represents the unique perspectives and opinions of said person. Thus, the link is to a personal webpage. If you disagree with this, I strongly recommend you start an RfC. --ScienceApologist 22:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Your information is inaccurate because you state that a hot dense state has less entropy than a cold undense state when in reality there are ways you can get the opposite to be true since entropy is a measure of disorder, not just of heat and density. --ScienceApologist 22:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
You claim on your webpage that scientists are attacking a strawman with regards to creationist argumentation. This is ludicrous because creationists use the trappings of science to promote their own pseudoscientific agenda -- especially with regards to this subject.--ScienceApologist 22:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The web page under discussion does not represent "unique perspectives" here, it represents the facts backed up by a number of citations. Web pages are typically owned by somebody anyway, so your objection does not seem relevant (otherwise, many other links would have to go too). The web page is written by a person but is not about a person. You seem to badly misunderstand what vanity material is in Wikipedia. Here's an example of vanity material:
Joe Bloggs is a 33-year-old chef from New York, New York. His hobbies include baseball and poker, and he's currently single. His childhood dream was to become a cowboy, but now he dreams of being a novelist.
It is vanity material because it is about an obscure person, Joe Bloggs. It is not vanity material because it is written by a person. Who writes it is irrelevant (confer the genetic fallacy) it is still vanity material.
Now look at the web page under discussion. It is not about a person, though it is written by a person. Rather, it is about the topic of creationism. Your objection thus carries no weight.
Regarding your objections to the content of the web page:
The statement regarding hot dense states and cold undense states was perfectly accurate given the definition of entropy being used (remember, it's measured in joules per Kelvin, what measurement might you be referring to?) and taken straight from my physics textbook. The "disorder" tag to entropy would be just a metaphor here and not the kind of "disorder" you seem to be referring to.
Some evolutionists do attack a straw man with regards to this creationist argument. This is backed up by a number of citations. Calling creationism "pseudoscience" is irrelevant and doesn't change the actual creationist position or the existence of documented anticreationist misconstruals. So there is no inaccuracy here either. --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Just because your webpage isn't about you doesn't mean that linking to this webpage is allowed. It's still a personal webpage. As I've said before, if you disagree with me, start an RfC. Let's put it a different way: not every webpage written by just anybody is worthy of inclusion. I think that your webpage is rightly excluded from linking. Now, I have no problem with you adding material as an editor, but you seem to be uninterested in this. The more you argue about this, the more I'm becoming convinced you have a personal interest in seeing your page linked in Wikipedia, which strikes me as even more evidence of WP:VANITY. --ScienceApologist 23:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, your definition is technically incorrect because entropy only equals what you say it equals when there is no chemical potential. You are using the differential equation dQ = SdT, but this is not the full ensemble differential equation which is dQ = SdT - PdV + μDN. As you can see, there is a state dependency which you have ignored. This is only one problem with your glib statement. --ScienceApologist 23:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
As I stated before, since creationists use scientific jargon to advance their pseudoscientific agenda, they are bound to objections based on science when they argue scientifically. --ScienceApologist 23:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Again, you have failed to give any adequate explanation as to why it is a personal web page. What makes it a "personal web page"? The page contains no actual vanity material. Elsewhere you seemed to say that if the web page is merely authored by a person it is a personal web page and on that grounds should be excluded. But this seems very strange and nonsensical, not to mention nonexistent in Wikipedia policy. If this is not a grudge against me for my previous contributions in trying to get my web links removed (for those who have just jumped in, see this discussion section where ScienceApologist is trying to remove another link of mine, even though it was added by someone else), I think you need to quote Wikipedia policy here.
I have actually tried to get material included in editing. It started off with correcting misrepresentations of the creationist position, and after a while we by consensus have reached something (see Creationism and the Second Law of Thermodynamics).
Regarding the content of the web page.
My definition is not incorrect, it is taken from my physics textbook. Your objection seems to be that my definition and description of entropy is not thoroughly complete. Even though this is true, that is not problematic considering this is only supposed to be a brief scientific introduction. --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I am not in the mood to repeat myself. I have given my reasons for excluding the reference and I think it is very clear. I have no agenda, I'm simply trying to interpret Wikipedia policy as best I can. --ScienceApologist 00:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I hate to tell you this, Wade, but your use of your introductory physics text's definition of entropy has led you astray as you attempt to describe entropy over the entire universe that is changing in volume as well as chemical potential. --ScienceApologist 00:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
You have not adequately given your reasons for the removal of the link. Given the discussion here, your most recent position seems to be that if the web page is merely authored by a person who is "obscure" (even if it contains no actual vanity content) it should be removed. This still seems strange and nonsensical (not to mention relying wholly on the ad hominem fallacy). Again, I request you to quote Wikipedia policy to support your claim. If this really isn't about an agenda, if you are simply trying to follow Wikipedia policy as best you can, I think you need to grant my request. I'm not asking you to repeat yourself, I am asking you to explain yourself. So far, you have not done that.
Regarding the content of the web page: yes the universe is changing in volume as well as chemical potential. Nonetheless, the universe is still heading towards maximum entropy in accordance with the second law. So again we still don't have any inaccuracies for the web page. --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I have already quoted policy.
While you are correct in stating that the entropy of the universe is increasing (by the 2LOTD), it does not follow from your definition of entropy.
--ScienceApologist 03:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The second law of thermodynamics says that the entropy of an isolated system cannot decrease. This holds for all valid forms of entropy, including the definition I used (which, again, came from my physics textbook).
No one said it didn't apply for all forms of entropy. However, the form of entropy you quoted actually decreases in the universe since the temperature scales as the inverse of the scale factor while the heat energy of the universe scales as the efficiency of virial collapse which follows the temperature as a linear growth for the largest structure. In other words, as the universe expands, if you just take into account the heat content of the universe and the temperature, the entropy is actually decreasing since dQ/dt > 0 and dT/dt < 0. It is the increase in volume that tips the balance in favor of the second law of thermodynamics (similar to any other expansion) so you need to scale your quantites by volume (as I imagine your physics text says in some fashion when they talk about isothermal versus adiabatic expansions, for example) or incorporate the PdV term at the very least into your discussion. --ScienceApologist 06:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
You said you quoted policy. Really? Regarding your current position on why the link should be excluded? To recap, your current position seems to be that if the web page is merely authored by a person who is "obscure" (even if it contains no actual vanity content) it should be removed. Please provide a quote of Wikipedia policy to support that statement. So far you it appears you have done no such thing. --Wade A. Tisthammer 04:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
This is a quote directly from WP:VANITY:
# The insertion of links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages. (Vanity links.)
You are effectively "being promoted" by having your personal research essay appear as an authorative resource.
--ScienceApologist 06:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
If merely being written by a person "promotes" them and if that is grounds to remove a web article, links are in trouble indeed because many web pages happen to be written by people. But I do not think you correctly understand the situation. Your claim is that if the web page is merely authored by a person who is "obscure" (even if it contains no actual vanity content) it should be removed. The quote does not establish that, because the web page under discussion is not a personal web page. The web page is not about a person, it is merely written by a person. Merely being written by a person (whether obscure or famous) does not constitute vanity material if it contains no actual vanity content. Read the Wikipedia section you quoted from and you’ll see that the section does not say that merely being written by a person who is “obscure” makes it a vanity link, particularly if the link contains no actual vanity content. To think otherwise seems to use an ad hominem fallacy. If we read your quote in context we see a very different picture emerges of what constitutes vanity material. Looking at some other excerpts:
Joe Bloggs is a 33-year-old chef from New York, New York. His hobbies include baseball and poker, and he's currently single. His childhood dream was to become a cowboy, but now he dreams of being a novelist.
The above was provided as an example of vanity material because of the content of the material rather than the notoriety of the author. It is about an obscure person. Does the web page under discussion have anything like this? No it does not. It is not about a person, it is only about the topic relevant to the Wikipedia entry (the creation-evolution debate). That the web page is written by a person is not relevant. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
because the web page under discussion is not a personal web page. -- I disagree, the web page under discussion is your personal web page. Wikipedia is not in the business of sourcing any webpage published by any random internet user without some indication that the webpage is a reliable source. There is no indication that your book report on Morris' treatises is reliable. If you disagree with my definition of a personal webpage, start an RfC. --ScienceApologist 19:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
There actually is an indication it is reliable: the verifiable citations used to support the claims. I strongly encourage you to check up on them. I am not the only person who has witnessed these misconstruals taking place by the way; Del Ratzsch (a somewhat prominent person in the controversy) is another.
Your definition of a "personal" web page is if it is merely written by a person who is "obscure" even if it contains no actual vanity content, which does not seem to fit into the context of Wikipedia guidelines of what vanity material is (see what I wrote above, to some extent I fear you may have taken the quote out of context). Additionally, common sense says that merely being written by a person who is "obscure" does not make something vanity material if it contains no actual vanity content. (Again, confer the ad hominem fallacy.) Nowhere is this belief of yours supported in any Wikipedia policy. Perhaps I will start an RfC, but I want the one on the ontological argument to finish up first so we can have a precedent. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
There actually is an indication it is reliable: the verifiable citations used to support the claims. -- Whether the article conforms to good reference practices or not is irrelevant. The most brilliant analysis, lucid prose, and equisitely referenced source is rightly excluded from Wikipedia if it is only found on somebody's personal webpage. The reason for this is because there is no way to ensure the reputation of the source. This isn't to disparage your editing and reference skills, it is merely a fact of obscurity and ownership. If you want to see your work included, get it published by a reputable source. --ScienceApologist 19:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so now indications of reliability and verifiability are irrelevant. Your requirement to have it "published by a reputable source" is a strange one, given that we are talking about web pages and not articles for scientific journals. Additionally, it is not a personal web page, at least not in the context of WP:VANITY. It is not about a person it is merely written by a person and contains no actual vanity content. The fact that it is written by a person (obscure or otherwise) is not relevant here. If it were, we'd have to remove a number of other good links. And so far the only basis you have for excluding the link is if it is merely written by a person who is "obscure", a policy nowhere to be found in Wikipedia despite my requests. --Wade A. Tisthammer 06:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is going nowhere. As it seems consensus is developing on the Talk:Ontological argument page that linking to your personal pages isn't appropriate on Wikipedia, I think it's safe to say that this criticism is valid, even if you personally don't agree with it. --ScienceApologist 05:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

First, as I said before, this is not a personal web page (at least, not in the context of WP:VANITY). It is merely written by a person and contains no actual vanity content. Think about this, please. Suppose that the web page being owned by an individual were enough to have it removed on the basis of it being a "personal web page" even if it contains no actual vanity content. Isn't it a tad arbitrary to remove a link based on the number of people who own the website? How many people would have to own it for it to be acceptable? --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


Here's a quote to illustrate why Wade's website should not be a source from WP:RS:

Personal websites as secondary sources

Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources.

That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website. Another possible exception to this rule occurs when somebody had written secondary source material that is suitable as a reference that he now refutes or corrects on his personal website, though even in this case one should be careful and try to find out the reason why the material has not been published elsewhere.

The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. It is impossible to know which is the case. Visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post, and should be treated accordingly.

--ScienceApologist 06:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

But again, it is not a personal website. The web page is not about a person, it is merely written by a person. In the context of WP:VANITY merely being written by a person does not make it a personal web page. Many web pages happen to be written by people. And again, WP:RS applies to general citations in Wikpedia articles; it says nothing about the standard external web links.
Your definition of a "personal web page" is a bit suspicious upon closer examination, for this would claim if the web page is merely authored by a person who is "obscure" (even if it contains no actual vanity content) it should be removed. But this would rule out many quality links, as I have elsewhere noted. It seems terribly arbitrary to remove a web link based on the number of people who own the website. --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
A personal website is one whose content is under the control of a single person - more importantly, is under the control of the person adding the content. Unless there is some sort of external control on the website, there's really no difference between a "personal website" and material posted on talk pages. Guettarda 21:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
This definition seems questionable however. As I said, it seems terribly arbitrary to remove a web link based on the number of people who own the website. Doing so would remove a number of quality web links (e.g. this one). --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
That's not a link on this page. --ScienceApologist 20:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

AfD

Wade's new forking creation: Creationism and the Second Law of Thermodynamics has been put up for AfD. Add your comments there. --ScienceApologist 23:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

First, let it be said that I did not create that fork, contrary to ScienceApologist's accusation. Second, this stub was a consensus reached decision from a previous discussion on whether or not to include a popular creationist claim regarding the second law of thermodynamics in the second law of thermodynamics Wikipedia entry. It was decided that the issue, being a significant minority view, was nonetheless best put somewhere else and this stub for it was created. See for instance this mediation section and the end of this section. --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)