Talk:Second law of thermodynamics/creationism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Removing the last links 2 Not a Significant Minority View, and also off topic 3 Creationism 4 Creationism and the second law: the wording of the encyclopedic entry 4.1 New Wording: Re-inserting the issue 5 creationism 2: the Return 6 Creationism stuff 7 On the link “Creationism and the second law of thermodynamics” 8 Boltzmann's view 9 Tisthammer, what is your objection? 10 The "Creationist position" ? 11 Straw poll 11.1 Agree 11.2 Disagree 11.3 Comment 12 Who needs mediation, anyway 13 AfD

[edit] Removing the last links

Looks like some evolution/creationism links remain on the article about the 2nd law of thermodynamics - I forgot to remove those a month or so ago. I plan to remove those too one week from today if nobody objects, on grounds that it is off topic. If anybody disagrees, please post here before then so we can discuss. Thanks! Bmord 03:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought someone had removed the links, but they were soon added back by somebody else.

Personally, I would be minded to keep a treatment of the issue in the page, much as it is at the moment -- ie with the point raised, but discussion limited to four or five links. I think it is useful that wikipedia should point to information on the question. The question is out there in society, it is appropriate for WP to point to information, and if all references to the question are cut, they will only keep being edited back in again. However the idea that the second law is a problem for self-organisation and complex systems is scientifically a misconception. So IMO whilst it's reasonable, and indeed a good idea, for the topic to be raised in the article, it is unnecessary (and distracting) to include any more material on it than a handful of representative links.

I would therefore recommend no change to the links in the article as currently is. -- Jheald 19:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC).

(No - I did forget to remove the links in the first place, my mistake. Sorry. I checked the history to confirm.)

The supposed relation between creationism and thermodynamics is not a significant minority view among physicists or biologists. This is proven by the lack of discussion in peer reviewed journals of physics and biology. Therefore, please bring your idea to the journals of primary research where it can be evaluated by experts in the field. If you win the day there, then your idea can properly find its way into the textbooks and encyclopedia articles of thermodynamics. Thank you. Bmord 04:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The claim that the two are linked is something that readers of wikipedia are quite likely to have been exposed to. Therefore it is sensible to touch on in the article. The claim is patently false. Therefore it is sufficient to deal with by giving representative links which present such a claim; and other articles which explain why it is false, and based on misconception.

In my view the article should not waste focus by dealing with the issue any further than that. But if all mention of the issue is excised, it will only get written back into the article at a later date, in a form that is worse than what is currently there. -- Jheald 10:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC).

With all due respect, this is not germane. The subject is not in the article (which is appropriate), because it is either a creationist argument or an anti-creationist argument, and as has been pointed out elsewhere on Talk:Second law of thermodynamics/creationism, that belongs in articles on that. Having sources for topics which are not covered in the article is absurd.

I'm going to Be bold and take them out, and if and when consensus puts Creationism and the second law in the article, that will be the time to have sources. Jheald, I understand your frustration, but if someone adds irrelevant content to the article, the thing to do is remove it, not leave it because of a fear that the next editor will add something worse. KillerChihuahua 17:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jheald. If we can include thermodynamics and human economics (which was also not covered in the article), we can include thermodynamics and creationism (for both sides). Creationism and this thermodynamics argument (however wrong) is a significant minority view. I am going to Be bold myself and return the links. --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

For either, there should be either no links, or at least a mention in the article. KillerChihuahua 00:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The creationist argument--however pseudoscientific--is indeed a significant minority view and arguably should be mentioned. However, I think if we are to do so we should present the minority view accurately if we are to abide by Wikipedia policy. When I first saw the section, I was annoyed at how the article (probably unintentionally) distorted the creationist argument, as I have seen so many anticreationists do. I thus set upon my self to clear up the misunderstanding of the creationist position while still leaving the majority scientific opinion having the last word. But when I did so I encountered stiff resistance, even when I was able to provide citations. Even after reason prevailed and the creationist position accurately portrayed, it was eventually decided that the entire section on the creationist argument be removed. Although I don't believe the creationist argument is a particularly good one, I admit that the accurate portrayal of it does look a lot more plausible than the straw man that often appears in anticreationist sources. Should we put back the section, I think that's going to ruffle too many feathers (again). Giving links regarding the significant minority view and its critics may very well be the best option. --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, these belong in Creation-evolution controversy. They are not appropriate in an article which does not reference this subject. KillerChihuahua 15:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

There exists very numerous arguments in the creation-evolution controversy. If we listed every argument against evolution, the evidence against evolution section of creation-evolution controversy entry would be very long indeed. --Wade A. Tisthammer 16:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Possibly move to Creation science then? And length of a more appropriate article is not a valid reason for keeping something on a shorter, but inappropriate, article. KillerChihuahua 16:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Even the creation science entry would become bloated if we introduced all pro-creationist/anti-evolutionist arguments. And I really don't think the links are inappropriate here; at least no more inappropriate than before I started to clear up misunderstandings of the creationist position.

If you wish, we could present a "short and sweet" statement regarding creationism and the second law. This one is from Duncharris in 30 July 2004 (which appears to have been when the section first started).

Creationists often claim that biological evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. This claim is not recognised [sic] by the scientific community.

How about something like this? --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Wade, the "[sic]" is misapplied; "recognised" is the standard British spelling of the word. According to NPOV, we mustn't allow Ameri-centric bias to colour our perceptions. Jim62sch 01:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Short and sweet is preferable to a section of links with no correlating content in the article. I'd reword slightly: "Creationists sometimes claim that biological evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. This claim is not recognized by the scientific community."

I'd like to see consensus here, is this acceptable to all? also, where would it be placed in the article? KillerChihuahua 20:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Probably near the end. Duncharris put the section at the very end of the entry. I'm not sure "sometimes" is better than "often", as the argument is a significant minority view. Additionally, the entry may impose a false impression, since although creationists claim the second law poses a nasty problem for evolution, they usually don't mean a direct, formal contradiction. Additionally, a number of these creationists are themselves scientists (however a small minority that may be), and the writer in me wants to remove the passive voice. Here is my suggestion: "Many creationists claim that the second law of thermodynamics poses a major problem for biological evolution. The vast majority of scientists reject this claim." Short, sweet, no straw men and the majority is well represented and given the last word. How about this? --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes works better than often for me, as a significant minority view is still a minority view. As trying to figure out what percentage, and therefore weight, the view holds is sure to be problematical, going with the non-specific of "sometimes" avoids inaccuracy whereas "few" or "many" are open to it. Please always call me on passive voice, its my biggest bad habit - please correct it wherever you see me doing it. "poses a major problem" bothers me, though, as it sounds a little strident, especially given that you tell me the issue is indirect. What about:

"Some creationists claim that the second law of thermodynamics poses a problem for biological evolution. The vast majority of scientists reject this claim." KillerChihuahua 13:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

You’re forgetting something KC: it is the creationists who are the minority to begin with. Saying "many creationists" is thus quite appropriate here, especially given the fact that it is true. Still, I'd accept your wording as "close enough." --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This entire argument is absurd. Evolution violates entropy? No it doesn't -- the amount of energy required for and used by evolution adds to the level of entropy. Y'know, I can't even believe I gave this argument enough weight to refute it. Ugh. Jim62sch 01:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Fun facts regarding the history of this controversial section (thermodynamics and creationism):

• 30 July 2004: the controversial section began.
• 16 August 2005: I started my edits to clear up the (probably unintentional) misrepresentations of the creationist position in the section; where I subsequently met stiff resistance (even when I provided citations to support my case) and a small revert war. I added a link that focused on clearing up misunderstandings of the creationist position two days later after this date. Eventually, my efforts prevailed and a more accurate representation of the creationist position was in the section.
• 21 October 2005: The entire section was removed though the links remained.
• 4 November 2005: the link section was removed, but put back three days later.
• November 7-9, 2005: the link I added (the one that focused on clearing up misunderstandings of creationist claims) was removed twice.
• 1 December 2005: after two failed attempts to remove my link, the entire link section was removed yet again. The edit is reverted on the same day.

Is it just me or has there been a tendency to tone things down after a more accurate view of the creationist position was represented? Maybe I’m just paranoid in having such thoughts come to mind, but then why the change of heart on the section more than a year after it was introduced? --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you're suggesting, but your reference to paranoia suggests you're starting to recognize our grand conspiracy for what it is - I'd better alert the ministry of truth before our evil plans for world domination are compromised. :)

I notice no single paper in a peer-reviewed journal of thermodynamics or biology has ever been cited that presents this supposedly significant minority view of a 2nd law issue. I also notice that no scientific textbook of thermodynamics or biology again has ever been cited either that presents this supposedly significant new theory of a 2nd law issue. (If one were, I'd contact the textbook authors asking them in turn cite their references.) I assert the reason is that no such paper in a reputable journal of thermodynamics or biology exists. (Prove me wrong.) I conclude therefore this is not a significant minority view, as the 2nd law 'connection' is not discussed in peer-reviewed forums of thermodynamics or biology.

However, I'd like to move towards concensus. I second this phrasing: "Some creationists claim that the second law of thermodynamics poses a problem for biological evolution. The vast majority of scientists reject this claim." Anyone who disagrees, please propose an alternate phrasing so we can reach concensus. Thanks. Bmord 22:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I notice that a lot of material absent in scientific journal happens to be a significant minority view (e.g. astrology). The view doesn't have to be within a certain group to be a significant minority. Such views on thermodynamics have been published quite extensively, but generally only within creationist circles (in my experience).

My mention of it was not about some grand conspiracy. More likely it has to do with the more accurate description making the creationist claim look too believable (at least, that's the suspicion that came to mind). I don't think the argument is a good one, but I do admit that the actual creationist position looks a lot more plausible than the straw man. Maybe I’m just paranoid in having such thoughts come to mind, but then why the change of heart on the section more than a year after it was introduced? And why was the link I put forth (the one that cleared up misrepresentations of the creationist claim) deleted twice?

Regarding your suggestion of the wording: I like mine better, but I still think it's good enough. At least there are no more horrible straw men of the creationist position. --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest refocussing the comments, as far as possible, away from the debate on creationism; and instead address the interesting and wider topic of what the Second Law has to say about the appearance and persistence of systems with definite structure. I think it is an interesting issue in its own right; but one which can trip up more people thinking about it for the first time than just creationists. Most of the heavy lift can be left to the article self-organisation. But I think a paragraph here in this article would be useful to more than a few readers, and on-topic. So here's a possible suggestion:

Complex systems and the second law

It is occasionally perceived, sometimes in the context of debates about evolution and creationism, that the Second Law is incompatible with self-organisation or the coming into existence of complex systems. As considered further in the article on self-organisation, this is a misconception: it is false. In fact, as hot systems cool down in accordance with the second law, it is not unusual for them to undergo spontaneous symmetry breaking, and for structure to spontaneously appear as they cool past a critical temperature. Complex structures also spontaneously appear in systems where there is steady flow of energy from a high temperature input source to a low temperature external sink. It is conjectured that such systems tend to evolve into complex, critically unstable "edge of chaos" arrangements which very nearly maximise the rate of energy degradation (the rate of entropy production).

That way I think we can use this potential misconception to lead readers to some quite interesting ideas about the state and organisation of the world. -- Jheald 21:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC).

Yes! Symmetry breaking -- I brought that up on the ID discussion board -- lead balloon. Jim62sch 01:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That would be music to my ears as a replacement for all other material on this topic. However, Tisthammer will (I believe incorrectly) claim that you have grievously misrepresented his view. First he'll retreat from 'contradiction' to 'problematic' acting just slightly offended by this mistake, while not defining exactly what 'problematic' is supposed to mean in this context. Having not been provided a precise counter to refute, you'll then just start listing other examples of self-organizing structures. His counter will be that there are different types of organization, and will complain that you haven't provided an example of the appropriate type. You'll then point out that the 2nd law doesn't care about type. Unable to defend the view at this point, he'll then say - ok, even if his view is completely false, it is nevertheless a significant minority view and therefore deserves its say. You'll then ask for references to prove its signficance in the scientific community, which he won't provide. But wait, look what he did - before you know it, you've spent all this time back on this topic, despite your attempt to leave the topic for dead. You'll be back in the infinite loop that I've been circling in.

I wish we could reason this away logically, but to make any progress I think we just have to call it what it is. What we are dealing with here is a confused mixture of science and religion. They say that those who try to talk and eat at the same time will do neither very well. (We all talk and eat, we just recognize that our throat can't speak and swallow simultaneously lest we choke.) I think something similar applies here. Let's leave science to science, and religion to religion - each area has its own unique mode of thought, its own set of objectives, and its own forums for idea generation. When dealing with science, let's take our lead from the peer-reviewed forums of primary research, because folks, that is just the way that science works. When writing articles about religion, of course we'll use different sources then, because that is how religion works. In wikipedia we usually aren't so formal as to ask people to cite references, but at times, it becomes necessary. If someone here believes they have a devine revelation that will lead to a breakthrough in thermodynamics (or biology or topology or whatever), well that's just great - but the breakthrough first needs to be vetted by the scientific peer-reviewed journals of primary research before it can be said to belong in an encyclopedia. If someone has an experimental result that they believe will lead to breakthroughs in theology, that is also great, but in this case their idea needs to be vetted by the appropriate religious community before it belongs in articles about that religion. Bmord 04:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Where does that leave us? I think it leaves us with the statement "Some have asserted that the 2nd law is problematic for the theory of evolution. No exposition of this view however has survived analysis in a peer-reviewed primary research forum of thermodynamics or biology, and as such no further mention is appropriate in a scientific article of wikipedia, which is a forum for secondary research." Bmord 04:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm against any mention of the topic in this article either directly or through links. People who are interested in it can find the information elsewhere on their own. Mentioning a dispute only to point out that it is not worthy of mention seems silly to me. However, if it is to be mentioned in one, then mentioning it in both makes sense. "Some creationists claim that the second law of thermodynamics poses a problem for biological evolution. The vast majority of scientists reject this claim." looked like a good formulation of the ones listed above. Flying Jazz 20:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I have added the paragraph on complex systems and the second law to the article anyway, because I think it is useful, quite regardless of anything to do with creationism. (And I don't think tisthammerw would disagree with anything I have written -- it's not a misconception he believes creationism relies on).

Personally, I think the links at the end, as currently presented, do have positive marginal utility. I think it's enough to motivate them in the main article by saying that the Second Law doesn't prevent self-organisation, in the way I have tried to. I find the proposed sentence above, calling the creationists out by name, IMO unnecessarily agressive. It's enough - and to my mind more effective - to say that the misconception is wrong. No need to foreground creationists or get into who may or may not necessarily rest their arguments on the 2nd law/complex systems misconception. -- Jheald 20:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC).

The description of "Complex systems and the second law" at least borders on misrepresenting the creationist position, since creationists do not argue against self-organization of complexity per se, just the kind of self-organization of complexity evolution allegedly involves. Such statements on self-organization are often used as a rebuttal to creationist claims (as this one seems to be, given the explicit mention of creationism) and should be removed unless we are going to go down the road again of describing the creationist position as last time. --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

As I have said, I think the discussion of "complex systems and the Second Law" would be a good and useful thing to have in the article, even if there were no creationist debate.

However I think it is not unfair to contextualise the question by saying that one of the times the misconception most often comes up is in the context of debates about evolution and creationism.

Despite all that you've written, I can't see any other viable suggestion as to why a creationist might think that the Second Law should have any other relevance to do with their debate. -- Jheald 00:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC).

The section on self-organization explicitly mentions creationism, and this sort of thing is offered as a rebuttal against the creationist position (and we have not accurately described the creationist position here), we're treading on awfully thin ice here considering that this very same rebuttal confuses creationist claims. If we're going to have the section on self-organization, it might be best to exclude mention of creationism all together then. See this section for more info. --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Wade, I think it's true that you personally don't buy into the "2nd law/no complex systems" misconception.

But the documentary evidence is that this misconception is often raised in the context of discussion about evolution. See for example this piece on ChristianAnswers.net, [1], the first anti-evolution link I happened to find googling for "'second law' evolution". I'd agree it's unfortunate, but some of the anti-evolution camp evidently do try to make bricks with whatever straw they think they can find to hand. -- Jheald 10:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC).

I agree with Jheald. We must make mention of how this theory is abused in the creationism debate, otherwise new versions of that section will keep reappearing. We must not claim to enumerate all particular ways in which it has been abused, otherwise people will pop up with different tedious minutea about how it can be abused, claiming we are misrepresenting something about the 'other side'. It can be useful however to mention one of the specific ways in which it is abused, just to clarify that point, but we must leave open the idea that other arguments have been made. And at the end of the day, we must appeal to the fact that this is an article about science and as such it must take its lead from the peer-reviewed forums of primary scientific research, because in the presence of emotional disagreement, appeal to standardized processes are necessary to reach consensus. Bmord 17:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

But if we are going to attack creationist claims (particularly an attack that oversimplifies or misrepresents the creationist position), are we really willing to accurately describe the creationist position here? That's not what a lot of people want in my experience. Remember, it isn't (according to the creationists) that the second law prohibits self-organization (snowflakes etc.) per se (see this web page for instance, see also this and especially this) though they do claim that evolution lacks the means to overcome the general tendency towards disorder implied by the second law. It's a severe oversimplification to say that creationists deny all forms of self-organization via the second law. That's why I'm saying we are treading on thin ice here, and suggest that we remove mention of creationism in that section. It makes sense to attack the creationist position if we are describing it (accurately). If we're not describing the minority view, it seems inappropriate to make attacks on it, particularly if the attacks are based on oversimplified/distorted views of the actual position. --Wade A. Tisthammer 04:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Wade - it sounds like we are reaching some sort of concensus here. If I read you correctly, you say that you would agree with removing all mention of creationism from the 2nd law of thermodynamics article - correct? Thank you in advance for your confirmation - I'd like to double-check that I at least have your agreement before doing the final cleanup. Bmord 02:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

My only concern is that someone might add something about creationism again later, and we'll have to go through all this discussion again. So I'll suggest we reduce it to this phrase:

"Some have asserted that the 2nd law is problematic for the theory of evolution. No exposition of this view has yet survived analysis in a peer-reviewed primary research forum of thermodynamics or biology, and as such no further mention is appropriate in a scientific article of wikipedia, which is a forum for secondary research."

The standard I appeal to is that, by definition, science is developed in the peer-reviewed journals of primary scientific research. This is after all the scientific method. Secondary forums such as encyclopedias only report what has been developed - they do not do the developing. In presence of disagreement, we must become conservative and stick to the official source. And, you can't disagree, that for whatever reason, no creationist has yet submitted a logical argument capable of surviving peer review in the scientific journals of primary research. You'll notice the phrasing I chose does not rule out the possibility that such a thing might happen in the future. After all, we can't take a position on what the future of science may look like - we can only talk about what science looks like today. To be honest, this phrasing I'm offering gives me heartburn - I hate to treat such a pseudo-scientific claim with so much respect in a scientific article, but I am looking for something that we can all agree on. Please confirm if you accept. Thanks. Bmord 03:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Bmord, you and KillerChihuahua have given Wade every opportunity here, offering many concessions and compromises. You're wasting your time. Wade is going to insist on having it his way no matter what you say or do, and will drag this issue out to wear you down with tendentious and mendacious objections. We've experienced just this behavior from Wade at Talk:Intelligent design where he now has dominated 2 very long archived talk pages and is working on a third. Consensus will have to be reached without Wade, I'm afraid. FeloniousMonk 19:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Wade - is this true? Are you unwilling to accept my concession as FeloniousMonk predicts, or will you agree that a 2nd law of thermodynamics page is about thermodynamics and today's official science, not creationism, and that creationism has so far failed to penetrate official journals of science (and thus tries to short-circuit them by going to secondary journals managed by non-scientists such as ourselves?) I will proceed in a couple day's time, but it will make me feel better and I believe will make you look better if you can acknowledge concensus first.

It has (at times) been a pleasure, in either case. If you are a true Christian, please meditate on Galatians and the meaning of the Gospel as the freedom and obligation to move past the letter and towards the spirit. If you are a false Christian, please find a more honest way to pursue your politics. If you are a secular lay person confused by this temporary regression suffered by parts of our Church, please take more care to distinguish proper scientific discource from the unvetted thrashings of confused lay persons, and please forgive us for any confusion we may have caused you. I truely hope you can acknowledge concensus before we proceed, but please understand we will have to proceed in either case. I will proceed with the confidence that regardless of perspective, none can have legitimate grievance with a narrowing of this article to focus on only that which official fora have vetted. Bmord 20:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's what happened (in a nutshell) in the Talk:Intelligent design sections. I suspect that argument X is original research against intelligent design. I request a citation of a leading ID opponent making argument X to show that it is not original research. This request is repeatedly denied. Several times argument X is replaced by another. However, this new argument also appears to be original research. I make the same request, and again it is denied. Unless one wishes to disregard Wikipedia policy, I do not see how my objections were "tendentious and mendacious." FeloniousMonk has been a tad disruptive, often claiming editor consensus (even if one doesn't exist) in attempts to bypass Wikipedia policy (alas for him, a consensus doesn't override Wikipedia policy regarding citing your sources or original research) and my requests thereof. I may have to seek mediation or arbitration if this keeps up.

Here's what I propose: one can make a short mention of it like I proposed ("Many creationists claim that the second law of thermodynamics poses a major problem for biological evolution. The vast majority of scientists reject this claim.") or else one can remove it entirely (though I would still opt for including the links). Giving rebuttals that are based on a misrepresentation of the creationist claim does not seem appropriate. Hence, I propose rewording the first two sentences (in the "Complex systems and the Second Law" section) to something like, "It is often perceived that the second law implies a general tendency towards disorder. However, this tendency is not an invariability, and the second law is not incompatible with self-organization." Here we get rid of an insinuated creationist straw man (see above on what I said regarding creationists and self-organization) and also allow for a "backdoor" rebuttal for evolution. Perhaps not quite NPOV strictly speaking (due to the backdoor rebuttal) but at least we don't insinuate something that doesn't exist (that creationists claim that the second law prohibits self-organization, which is not true). If there are no objections I will reword that section accordingly.

Addendum No objections? Then I will reword the section. --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

So far the consensus has seemed to be on the "short mention" on the creationism issue and I would concede for that wording. I would agree with KC and Jheald on a brief mention, however, as it is a significant minority view even if it is scientifically flawed.

My beliefs regarding presenting the minority view accurately (if we are to present it at all) and mentioning the significant minority view have nothing to do with religion by the way. (Remember, I do not believe the creationist argument to be particularly good one.) It has more to do with fairness and Wikipedia policy. --Wade A. Tisthammer 02:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I have subsequently made the rewording on the "Complex systems and the Second Law." The claim that the second law is not incompatible with complexity coming into existence etc. is still there, but the reverse is no longer (incorrectly) credited to creationist claims. I have earlier documented that the claim of creationists that entropy never decreases is in fact a straw man, thus inappropriate for a Wikipedia entry. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

(decreasing indent) Here is what happened, not According to Wade. Wade makes an objection that something is not well cited enough. An large amount of offered cites are dismissed by him for flimsy and absurd reasons (I don't accept Dawkins as an important ID opponent, I want to see the exact sentence in the cite - when the sentence was not presented as a quote!). He posts essays liberally sprinkled with accusations that editors are ignoring WP:CITE and offering as proof that he rejects the cites offered, then claims his request for cites was "denied." Wash, rinse, repeat. Repeated efforts to get him to actually contribute rather than disrupt result in Wade claiming there is a cabal. Please bear in mind that this is freely summarized and no direct quotes are implied in any way. Well, except for Wade constantly claiming "my request was denied" which I could probably find 20-30 instances of, usually following a post by another editor offering two or three cites that he didn't like. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I never said in any way that I don't accept Dawkins as an important ID opponent. On the contrary, I pointed out that he was a leading ID opponent--the problem is Dawkins did not make the argument under discussion. Wade (that's me) makes an objection showing there is no citation of a leading ID opponent making argument X to show that the argument is not original research. Citations were offered, and I rejected them. Why? Let's take an example.

The argument, "by Intelligent Design's own reasoning, a designer capable of creating irreducible complexity must also be irreducibly complex." I have never seen this argument other than Wikipedia, and I suspected this claim to be original research. I have subsequently asked for a citation of a leading ID opponent who makes this claim. Such requests have been repeatedly denied. Citations provided did not consist of a leading ID opponent making this claim. Some are almost similar, e.g. a leading ID opponent claiming that the designer must be complex (a quote from Dawkins) but without the ID opponent even mentioning irreducible complexity, claiming that the designer must be irreducibly complex, or claiming that the designer must be irreducibly complex by intelligent design's own reasoning. Why did I reject the citations? Because they didn't even mention the actual argument under discussion. I would like to see KC's explanation of why this is a "flimsy and absurd" reason. --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not a Significant Minority View, and also off topic

The more I read the discussion, the more convinced I am that the concept that the 2nd law of thermodynamics somehow contradicts the theory of biological evolution is not a significant minority view. As described in the guidelines for writing wikipedia articles, minority views that are so unusual as to not capture a significant mindshare of those versed in the topic, need not be represented in these articles. I therefore plan to remove all discussion of evolution versus creationism from the 2nd law of thermodynamics page as being off-topic and not representing the view of physicists who study thermodynamics. Remember, wikipedia is not a forum for original research - it is a forum for secondary research. If somebody wishes to advance a view that is not currently recognized by those expert in the field, they are advised to take their idea to the appropriate peer-reviewed journals for primary research in that topic, not wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for already established knowledge.

I am not asserting here that creationism is not a significant minority view - I am only asserting that the link between this and the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not a significant minority view of those active in the field of thermodynamics. I base this not only on the apparent lack of scientific discussion on this topic in the appropriate peer-reviewed forums of primary research in the field of thermodynamics, but also on the fact that the explanations advanced in this article reveal a lack of familiarity with basic concepts such as open versus closed systems and disapative structures which could not possibly have originated from someone versed in the theory of thermodynamics.

Once again, I state my intentions to delete discussion of evolution versus creationism from the primary article on the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I am announcing this approximately a week in advance, so that anybody who disagrees has an opportunity to refute using evidence of serious scientific discussion in any peer-reviewed journal of thermodynamics. If no such evidence is produced here by October 22, then I will go ahead and remove that discussion. Thank you. Bmord 20:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The page is about the Second Law of Thermodynamics, not the Creation-evolution controversy. I am going to {{sofixit}} and remove the text completely, since today is the 22nd. --210.246.30.105 14:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC) (User:Superiority)

Alas, it seems my effort to clear up the common misunderstanding of this creationist claim via this thermodynamics article has failed after all. (I am not a big fan of this creationist argument, but I would like to see anti-creationists attacking non-distorted versions of what creationists actually claim, as I have rarely if ever seen anyone attack the actual creationist position.)

--Wade A. Tisthammer (10/25/2005)

Actually, I'm a little confused. It was said, “the more convinced I am that the concept that the 2nd law of thermodynamics somehow contradicts the theory of biological evolution is not a significant minority view.” First, it should be noted that the creationist claim is not necessarily that of a true contradiction, though creationists have claimed that the second law poses a nasty problem for evolution. This may not be a “significant” minority opinion (and that’s debatable at best, since there are quite a few people versed in the topic who believe the second law poses a problem to evolution), but then when has that stopped us from putting it in a wikipedia article? The same thing could be said of astrology, for instance. Additionally, creation scientists do not (or perhaps more accurately, cannot) present their case (as far as I know) in peer-reviewed scientific journals either, and yet we have an entry on creationism. Is there special pleading going on here?

“I therefore plan to remove all discussion of evolution versus creationism from the 2nd law of thermodynamics page as being off-topic and not representing the view of physicists who study thermodynamics.” So it is not representing the view of physicists who study thermodynamics that the second law poses no real problem for evolution? (If you recall, that’s what I put in the 2nd law and creationism article.)

--Wade A. Tisthammer (10/26/2005)

We can agree regardless that it is off topic - this article is about thermodynamics, not biology.

If there were peer-reviewed journals of experimental astrology, then I'd be the first to recommend that as the defining source of astrology knowledge for the astrology article. Funny thing, I haven't heard of them. :)

Incidentally, I uncovered one of the logical falacies that makes some people think there is contradiction where there isn't. In the "Answers in Genisis" website (still linked to in the main article, maybe we should remove?) there is a summary of the 2nd law that is exactly backwards. In the discussion on Question 1 (Open Systems) we find this false summary 'information tends to get scrambled'. On the contrary, information tends to increase as entropy increases - not decrease. In fact it is widely hypothesized that this is why we remember the past rather than the future. Another great illustration is Maxwell's Demon. Yet another related illustration is the concept of entropy as redefined (for their own use) by the field of Information theory, in which entropy is basically used as a measure of information - the higher the entropy the more information - useful in discussions of compression algorithms and also cryptography. At a very approximate intuitive level, you might think of it this way - complexity increases as entropy increases, and information is complexity. But my last sentance is very vague and not rigorous, in exchange I just hope it is somewhat intuitive.

(On a side note, I find the advice in that 'answers in genesis' article to be in bad faith, as they say things like 'don't use this argument, because the other person will be expecting it and might have a response ready'. What, is this a competition? No, its about the truth. If someone believes an argument correct, then they should use it. If not, they shouldn't - simple as that. The scientific process is not about people trying to hoodwink each other. Neither, for that matter, is honest faith.) Bmord 07:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the AiG article says the arguments should not be used because they are not correct. Whether one believes them to be is irrelevant, AiG considers the evidence to show them to be false. --210.246.30.220 00:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Does an increase in disorder correspond with an increase in information? Yes and no, depending on the context in which it is viewed. Information as far as mere quantity then yes: it takes more information to describe a disorganized system (e.g. all molecules in random motion). As a computer science major, I'm well aware that a string of random bits has little hope of data compression, whereas orderly programs and documents often stand a better chance. Thus, the "information" used to describe the more "orderly" systems is less, and in that context information and entropy have a positive correlation. In another context however, entropy is a measure of the "noise" in a message transmitted. For instance, suppose you make a photocopy, then make a photocopy of that photocopy, a photocopy of that photocopy etc. and you'll find that the end of the chain may not be a perfect copy of the absolute original. So in this context, the claim that information increases as entropy increases is false (since entropy in this case is a measure of information loss or "uncertainty"). You could claim that the creationists have misunderstood information theory (if they are referring to information theory) and that is perhaps a legitimate criticism. But regarding an increase in information being a reduction of entropy see this article, particularly under the part "Reducing Entropy Bit by Bit". In this context, the claim that information increases as entropy increases is not entirely correct (since entropy in this case is a measure of information loss or "uncertainty"). Also, information could be said to clarify matters of "uncertainty" (entropy) and thus have a positive correlation in this sense but not the one you seem to assume. From this article:

We can say that information has the property of reducing the uncertainty of a situation. The measurement of information is thus the measurement of the uncertainty. That measurement is called Entropy. If entropy is large, then a large amount information is required to clarify the situation. If entropy is small, then only a small amount of information is required for clarification. Noise in a communications channel is the principal cause of uncertainty.

So you can see how some creationists have attributed entropy to be "noise" and thus see entropy as an enemy of information. Alas, the link between entropy and information is complex enough to be misunderstood by both sides (as does seem the case here) --Wade A. Tisthammer (10/28/2005)

I'm afraid you are thinking about information preservation, where you define noise as deviation from the original desired signal. In the article you cite, they are in fact *still* using entropy as a measure of information - they just happen to be using it to measure unwanted information. To your photocopy example, do you really care about that thumprint on the glass, or that the viscocity of ink is not uniform but in fact varies in some complicated way? Probably not - this information is extraneous to you, because it so happens that you only care about the glowing candles and smiling face as they looked on your son's birthday (or whatever you happen to be copying.) The 20th photocopy does contain more information than the first - it just so happens that you care less about fluctuating ink viscosity than you do about how the candlelight was reflected by those eyes.

So what about evolution? Is evolution undermined by addition of 'extraneous' information during replication? No! In fact, that's the whole idea behind evolution. Animals can 'photocopy' themselves, but not perfectly. As in your example, there is a gradual accumulation of random 'extraneous' information (entropy) that was not in the original. Much of this random information is harmful, some of it is fatal. But sometimes, this random new information, or entropy, turns out to be helpful. The harmful changes are filtered out because the animals that contain this harmful entropy are less likely to reproduce, but those that contain helpful entropy are more likely to reproduce. Yes, evolution is based on the idea of random variation (entropy increase) combined with filtering. And yes, filtering is a way of organizing. That is why you have to push the pump hard if you want to filter contaminents out of your drinking water (if you've used a water filter) - the 2nd law says you must pay a penalty if you want to filter, and that penalty takes the form of energy expendature that must increase entropy somewhere else. If evolution was only about random mutation without the filtering, then perhaps no sun would be required. But evolution does need to perform filtering, and this is justified by increasing entropy in the sun's hydrogen. Bmord 19:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

On a more personal note, as a Christian I am always saddened when I see the Gospel trivialized in this manner. When the Church wastes its energy and reputation arguing that the sun orbits the Earth (as it once did), the deeper message of our faith gets lost. Suddenly there is no 'good news', only a bunch of tedious historical curiosities about how our ancestors thought about their world at a physical level. But faith is not about physics, or natural history, or biology - its about something much deeper. I personally believe Galatians provides a good angle for viewing the Gospel, in which the good news is about moving past the letter of the law (Mosaic law, at the time) and towards the spirit. Let's leave science to science. I have yet to meet a scientist who took creationism claims seriously, but I have met scientists who were turned off of faith since they thought this was incompatible with science. Yes, I recognize this is way off topic. But then again, so is this whole thread. Bmord 19:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The type of connection entropy and information have is still important to understand. In terms of information as creationists often use it, it is the case that information tends to become garbled as the entropy of the universe increases (just as machines tend to break down and deteriorate). The photocopy example is a case in point (and yes, we would care about thumbprints and the like e.g. when it comes to pictures). In another sense, information and entropy have a positive correlation in the sense that the more disordered a system is, the more information is needed to describe it. While true, this doesn't attack the actual creationist position here. That was the point I was trying to make.

So what about evolution? Is evolution undermined by addition of 'extraneous' information during replication? No! In fact, that's the whole idea behind evolution. Animals can 'photocopy' themselves, but not perfectly. As in your example, there is a gradual accumulation of random 'extraneous' information (entropy) that was not in the original. Much of this random information is harmful, some of it is fatal. But sometimes, this random new information, or entropy, turns out to be helpful.

Creationists (rightly or wrongly) claim that this random procedure does not meet the "criteria" for overcoming the general tendency towards disorder (since the mere existence of an open system is insufficient). In some sense I can sympathize with them. Mutations have sometimes been beneficial, but what kinds of changes have we seen? Have we seen mutations produce any new organs, for example? It is noteworthy that while we can point to many organs that have deteriorated and become vestigial, never have we found any incipient organs now in the process of development (however slowly).

And yes, filtering is a way of organizing. That is why you have to push the pump hard if you want to filter contaminents out of your drinking water (if you've used a water filter) - the 2nd law says you must pay a penalty if you want to filter, and that penalty takes the form of energy expendature that must increase entropy somewhere else. If evolution was only about random mutation without the filtering, then perhaps no sun would be required. But evolution does need to perform filtering, and this is justified by increasing entropy in the sun's hydrogen.

Creationists claim that more than the mere existence of an open system is required for "order" to increase (or at least the kind of order they refer to). See this web page for more info. This is not to say that the creationist position is ultimately correct here, only that one should at least be aware of the actual position before criticizing it.

When the Church wastes its energy and reputation arguing that the sun orbits the Earth (as it once did)

Actually, it was mainly the secular scientists of the time that opposed Galileo (going against the wisdom of Aristotle), not the church officials. Most astronomers of the time put Galileo at the fringes of science (a fact that many anti-religious propaganda stories leave out). Galileo's views were largely accepted by the church. What changed? Galileo did tick off the pope later on (Galileo himself believed he got in trouble because he made "fun of his Holiness" rather than what moved around what), and the rest his history. Was the Catholic Church saintly in this matter? No. But it is important to understand what the real story is, both in the creation-evolution debate and in history. --Wade A. Tisthammer (10/30/2005)

No, silly, you don't care about the thumbprint - by which I mean that you wish it wasn't there, it is noise, aka unwanted information, distracting from the candlelight. Re-read the photocopy example more slowly.

I wish I could believe that the Church did not at one time believe itself to have a large stake in the geocentric theory. But you conceed that we didn't handle that one very well, which is agreement enough.

I assert that 'cosmological evolution' is a strawman theory that in fact is never discussed by modern physicists, but which exists today only in creationist's imaginations so they can have an easy fake theory to debunk. My assertion should be easy for you to disprove - only one recent paper is needed. But this is irrelevant in any case, as it has nothing to do with biological evolution.

If we ignore the fictitious strawman theory of 'cosmological evolution' then we are only left with biological evolution. Having read that webpage, I will now make the argument that you should have made long ago, on your behalf. According to that webpage, you should tell me that although evolution provides three of the four of Morris's criteria, it still fails to provide one, namely Morris's criterium #3: "A pre-planned program (to direct the growth in complexity);" Uh, this is called begging the question. A simpler logical fallicy is hard to imagine, I understand now why you make vague accusations of not understanding "the creationist position", while mysteriously failing to state which aspect of "the position" it is that has not been adequately addressed. Consider your argument debunked. No need even to mention Bénard_cells as a counter-example to #3, nor to mention evolutionary principles used in computer simulations to spontaneously evolve computer algorithms, since the whole argument boils down to point #3, which is nothing except begging the question.

Your comment about organs-in-progress is interesting and fun as it invites creative speculation. I always did wonder why we had earlobes, thanks for explaining them. :) I'd love to discuss that one offline, but it has nothing to do with thermodynamics.

Is there still any aspect of this 2nd-law creationism thing that you believe has not been adequately addressed? If so, please be brave and identify the specific point. Bottom line remains that no respected well-published physicist will give you the time of day if you present creationism to him/her as anything other than poetic alegory.

If you can not identify the *specific* point, if any, which still has not been adequately addressed and which is not simply begging the question, and if you can not do so in about a week, then I will propose we delete all discussion of this topic from the discussion page. We are really taking up too much space, which at this point would be better served talking about edits.69.248.6.26 04:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

"No, silly, you don't care about the thumbprint" I actually would, since it is "noise" in the information.

I wish I could believe that the Church did not at one time believe itself to have a large stake in the geocentric theory.

Think about it. Copernicus's book on the topic circulated for seventy years without any trouble at all. Indeed, it was Cardinal Baronius who had declared that the "Holy Ghost intended to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." Yet another fact Galileo myths typically do not mention: how easy it had been for Galileo to obtain the Church's permission to publish his Dialogue Concerning the Two World Systems, the book that got him into so much trouble in the first place. Alas for Galileo, the Pope was eventually persuaded that Simplicio was a caricature of him.

I assert that 'cosmological evolution' is a strawman theory that in fact is never discussed by modern physicists, but which exists today only in creationist's imaginations so they can have an easy fake theory to debunk.

I don't think creationists did it intentionally, they just misunderstood the concept (just as many evolutionists misunderstand creationism). I certainly could understand why they believe the "evolution model" says that things in general go from simple to complex, from disorder to order (e.g. hydrogen gas eventually becoming people).

If we ignore the fictitious strawman theory of 'cosmological evolution' then we are only left with biological evolution. Having read that webpage, I will now make the argument that you should have made long ago, on your behalf. According to that webpage, you should tell me that although evolution provides three of the four of Morris's criteria, it still fails to provide one, namely Morris's criterium #3: "A pre-planned program (to direct the growth in complexity);" Uh, this is called begging the question.

Not if Morris believes we have good empirical basis for that criterion, and he does (if you recall). By thinking he believed nothing of the sort you have misunderstood the creationist position. He says that as far as all observations go this criterion as well as the others have been verified (e.g. cars, computers, and space shuttles); this kind of order (allegedly) requires the third criterion.

No need even to mention Bénard_cells as a counter-example to #3

That is not a counterexample, because this is not the kind of order creationists are talking about. You have misunderstood the creationist position again.

nor to mention evolutionary principles used in computer simulations to spontaneously evolve computer algorithms

This is not a counterexample to criterion #3 because this environment is itself a pre-planned program from which these algorithms come about.

A simpler logical fallicy is hard to imagine, I understand now why you make vague accusations of not understanding "the creationist position", while mysteriously failing to state which aspect of "the position" it is that has not been adequately addressed. Consider your argument debunked.

Consider the creationist argument misunderstood (yet again). Perhaps you should visit this web page once more.

Ah, the common refrain, I misunderstand your position, yes of course. And yet you're still remarkably coy about specifically how I misunderstand it. Humor us. Identify the disconnect, and be specific, please. So far you've hinted something about me misunderstanding the 'type' of order at issue here. So that you can better clarify, let me point out that the 2nd law says nothing about different types of order (such as functional versus geometric, or otherwise. That's a false dichotomy by the way, as illustrated by a key.) So, I'm really quite curious how you plan to be specific about this disconnect, while somehow preserving a link to the 2nd law as actually defined in any physics textbook. I look forward to your reply. Bmord 03:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The indentations are getting a bit too much, so I'll start fresh.

Ah, the common refrain, I misunderstand your position, yes of course. And yet you're still remarkably coy about specifically how I misunderstand it.

I don't understand why you think so. I did specifically identify the points of misunderstanding. One of them is that you misunderstood the kind of order creationists refer to. For instance, you cited Bénard_cells as a counterexample to the third criterion. But as the this web page specifically mentioned the order being referred to is not geometric regularity, and I used snowflakes as an example of something that did not have the kind of order the third criterion refers to. So do you really think circles would be any better? Another area where you misunderstood (again, I specifically mentioned this) was your question-begging criticism. This was a misunderstanding because creationists claimed that the criteria holds as far as all observations go. They did not merely assume the third criterion, they claim (correctly or incorrectly) that the criteria have good empirical basis for acceptance.

let me point out that the 2nd law says nothing about different types of order

Even if true, it is the case that "other" types of order (e.g. the organized complexity of a car) have a general tendency to go from order to disorder (e.g. cars break down) as a result (albeit not necessarily a direct one) of the second law of thermodynamics; energy is used in the construction and operation of organized systems (living organisms, automobiles, and so forth), in spite of the constant increase of disordered energy in the universe. Can this tendency be overcome? Absolutely, but creationists claim that certain criteria are needed... --Wade A. Tisthammer (11/3/2005)

"Even if true..." Which is it? Is it true, or false, that the 2nd law distinguishes between different kinds of complexity and treats them differently? Pick a position, everything else we discuss from here on depends on which of these two positions you take - you can't have it both ways. Bmord 18:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I am impatient so I'll answer on your behalf. The correct answer (as you can confirm with any textbook on thermodynamics if you wish) is that the 2nd law does not distinguish between different types of organization or different types of entropy. The 2nd law is a statement about entropy, in general - in any form. So, the example of bernard cells is relevant in showing how macroscopic increases in order can be justified by microscopic increases in entropy - all without violating the 2nd law.

Unless, that is, you wish to introduce some shining new law of thermodynamics - one which does distinguish between different kinds of organization, such as geometric versus functional (whatever that means.) But then we're not really discussing the 2nd law. Instead, we're discussing this hypothetical new law of thermodynamics which asserts that there are different kinds of organization and that they are subject to different laws. Introducing some new law of course requires a formal statement of the law combined with plenty of empirical evidence supporting this new law. Wikipedia of course would not be the correct forum for introducing this new law.

Hopefully you have now realized what the actual creationist position is, even if you don't agree with it. But to answer your question: yes and no. As far as I know, all forms of the second law measure entropy in joules per Kelvin, and so in that sense the answer is "no." But the second law has multiple applications beyond the most immediate one (the thermal energy/temperature relationship). For instance, the second law has also been applied to the utility of energy in general, and there is something called the Boltzmann constant that allows us to apply the second law to statistical entropy (which includes such concepts as randomness and states of physical combinations). So in another sense there are "different kinds of complexity" albeit complexity per se is not what entropy is about (depending on how you define complexity). (11/7/2005) Wade A. Tisthammer 20:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, this isn't a subjective question - the answer is not "yes and no". The answer is no. You confuse attempts to generalize the law and find analogies in other fields with the law itself.

Ironically though, your confusion does not matter. Not only would the 2nd law have to make such a distinction for your argument to be valid, but it would also have to treat these different types of complexity differently. If it treated all types of complexity in the same way, then you would still be unable to claim that my counterexamples are invalid due to applying to a different kind of complexity.

Can we finally lay this matter to rest? Can we agree on the following sentance: "Evolution is compatible with the 2nd law of thermodynamics"? Bmord 03:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

If you are a fellow Christian, I sincerely hope I have done nothing to shake your faith. if you like the first book, I encourage you to keep reading - it gets better! :) The centerpeice of our faith is of course the Gospel, which doesn't start (except for some foreshadowing) until Mathew. When understood in its historical context, I personally find that the letter of Paul to the Galatians provides a good perspective for understanding the four books of the Gospel. If you don't mind a reference to secular philosophy, I also like to think about Hume's 'is-ought' problem (wikipedia has an article on it) when thinking about the relationship between science and faith. I recognize this separation may be a bit of a paradigm shift, to help motivate it I'll point out that we have known for a very long time that the sky is not water which has been parted from the ocean below by a firmament - and yet our ancestors have continued to find meaning in their faith, perhaps because they found in it something deeper than a science textbook. Bmord 03:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The answer "yes" or "no" depends on what the question means. In one sense, no (joules per Kelvin is still the standard measurement as far as I know) in another sense "yes" due to the various applications of entropy as I illustrated above (e.g. energy in general and the Boltzmann constant). You said, "Can we agree on the following sentance[sic]: "Evolution is compatible with the 2nd law of thermodynamics"?" I suspect evolution is compatible, to the very least I don't think it contradicts the second law in any direct way. Let it be said that I am not a fundamentalist Christian (I could be called a Christian, though I am not necessarily an orthodox one) and that I have no religious objections to evolution. I also do not believe Biblical creationism should be introduced into biology classrooms in public schools, nor do I think the theory of evolution should be omitted from the public schools; evolution is an important scientific theory that deserves to be taught. Also, I do not believe this “thermodynamic” argument against evolution to be a particularly good one. That said, whether or not the current evolutionary mechanism (mutation-selection) is enough to overcome the observed tendency towards disorder I'm not quite certain (there are a number of reasons; e.g. we've never seen the mechanism produce increases in complexity as [however gradually] evolving a new organ), but I do believe the creationist position should not be distorted and that anti-creationists should at least do the homework of getting the view right to begin with before criticizing it. Wade A. Tisthammer 01:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

When discussing the law F=MA, we don't say there are different kinds of force, or different kinds of mass. In one situation the force might be generated by a chemical rocket, in another case it might be created by a spring. The mass might belong to a rocket ship, or maybe a pendulum. It might be measured in kilograms or in pounds. But as far as the laws of Newton are concerned, we draw absolutely no distinction whatsoever between these. F=MA regardless of units or of the system under consideration. If someone claims they can produce infinite acceleration of finite mass with finite force, and I use a counterexample of a metal on a spring, there would be no sense in them saying 'oh, but I'm not talking about the mass of type 'metal', I'm talking about mass of type 'fiberglass', and my force is type 'rocket', not type 'spring'. Mass is mass, force is force. Ditto with entropy, as far as the laws of thermodynamics are concerned - which is after all the subject of this article.

(If somebody wants to argue that entropy increase of the sun that powers photosynthesis and that drives evolution is insufficient to offset any entropy decrease through evolution, then they would have some calculations to perform first. I speculate that a few back-of-the-envelope calculations would quickly show that the entropy increase of the sun over the course of even just one year (or maybe just one minute) is so mind-numbingly huge as to justify all the organization that evolution has ever done even since the creation of our planet in the eyes of the 2nd law. But the onus of doing this calculation is not on me. It is on the party who is advancing the controversial theory. Only if the entropy increase behind all solar energy that has reached earth throughout the history of evolution is actually less than the entropy decrease due to evolution - only then would they have a point. Their findings would then not belong in wikipedia - rather, they would belong in a journal of biology or of thermodynamics, probably the former. Once accepted by the scientific majority, it could then properly work its way into textbooks and encyclopedias. Advancing new controversial theories is very hard work - it can't be done with some arm-waving. The burden of proof is on the minority's side, so as to convert the majority. That's the scientific process. That is what we mean by 'peer review'.)

"I suspect evolution is compatible, to the very least I don't think it contradicts the second law in any direct way.". Excellent! :) Sounds like you agree with the scientific majority, and with me. Can we agree then that this topic does not belong on an encyclopedia article about the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Bmord 22:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The topic, whether right or wrong, is a significant minority view. So I'm not entirely in favor of removing it outright. I think external links would at least be appropriate. Correct me if I'm wrong, but did the whole issue of removing it start only after I corrected misunderstandings of the creationist claims? Clearly an accurate presentation of the minority view should not have us running scared and provoke us towards censorship. --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

A significant minority view among those in the field? Really? Well then, please cite even just one paper in any peer-reviewed journal (publish date other than April fools day) of either themordynamics or biology that proposes this supposedly significant minority view of a 2nd law issue. If you can't, then please concede that this view is insignificant in the scientific community. Thanks. Bmord 22:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The idea of the second law posing a nasty problem for evolution has been published extensively and is a significant minority view. Unfortunately for the creationists, their significant minority view has not (as far as I know) been published in mainstream scientific journals. Still, the fact remains that (like many pseudoscientific beliefs) it is a significant minority view. --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Its not a significant minority view at all, so far as I can determine. However, it is something which concievably someone might look for - they hear about creationists using the 2nd law in some argument, they want to know about it - so although I don't think it belongs here, I can concede someone might look for it here. As the links are apparently unremoveable without getting into an edit war, I proposed the statement which you seconded in "Removing the last links" above. I see no need to debate the worth of the use of the 2nd law in this manner - it is grasping at straws by the ignorant - but that is not germane. It is a strong enough possibility that someone would look for it here to have the two line explanation to explain the links. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 02:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it is indeed a significant minority view. An idea doesn't need to be published by a reputable scientific journal to be a significant minority view. Remember, even horribly pseudoscientific beliefs can be adhered to by a significant minority. --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose that depends. Is this an article about science, or about folk pseudo-science? If this encyclopedia is to take itself seriously, I think the answer to that is clear. The distinction must be maintained. An article that is explicitly about pseudo-sience, of course, would be free to (would be required to) take its sources from forums that do not have authority in the realm of science. Bmord 17:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

IMO it's useful to distinguish two different things here: firstly what topics should Wikipedia address; and secondly, what views should it reflect.

I think it's fair to say that there is a significantly held misconception that the second law is incompatible with the emergence and persistence of complex systems. Therefore analysing this misconception is on topic for wikipedia. I think it is also fair to say that there is no support for such a view from informed opinion - people who actually know and research thermodynamics. So I think Wikipedia can quite happily, with complete confidence of being NPOV, say: "it's bollocks". -- Jheald 18:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Creationism

I believe we can finish this confusion very simply. Believing that evolution violates the 2nd law is a very natural, reasonable mistake, but it is a mistake. You can increase order at a macroscopic level while increasing disorder at a microscopic level. This is how your refrigerator organizes luke-warm air into hot air and cold air - it does this by increasing the entropy (disorder) of coal molecules being burned at a distant powerplant. You organize the papers on you desk at work by increasing the entropy of food you eat. Evolution is ultimately powered by solar energy - the conversion of low-entropy hydrogen into higher-entropy helium atoms, a process that we know as fusion. (This of course allows plants to decrease entropy of chemicals by increasing entropy of the sunlight they absorb, then we come along and decrease entropy of our email inbox by increasing chemical entropy of the potatoe we had for lunch.) Evolution is an example of a dissipative structure - a self-organizing system that organizes so as to increase entropy of its environment. A much simpler example of such a system is something that happens when you heat water, a little before it starts to boil: Bénard_cells. (If you are a Christian who is looking to reconcile your faith with the theory of evolution, then I suggest you consider the doctrine of historical criticism, as followed for example by the ELCA. But of course I do not pretend to have disproven creationism in this paragraph, I have only explained why evolution is not a 2nd law violation, and that evolution is in fact powered by the 2nd law. You'll notice in this description a tight link between the increase of entropy and our informal, every-day concept of 'energy'.) User:Bmord

Ah - I see on the main article that somebody attempts to circumvent the above by marking it all up to a simple misunderstanding - no, biological evolution is not at issue here, what creationists are actually arguing against is something else called 'cosmological evolution'. Great, if this is true, then I'm glad we all agree on biological evolution. But please define this new term 'cosmological evolution model' if it is to appear on the main article. In general, when attributing something to some misinterpretation of words, being careful to provide clear definitions is probably a good idea. Bmord 04:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I would just like to voice my strong opposition to having creationism stuff on a science page. Objections to scientific ideas should come from scientific sources and the scientific argument should be at least outlined, not just given in links. I'm not demanding anything, just voicing. I know this isn't "PC", and I'll prolly get bashed by all the "PC" appeasers out there, as well as creationists, but sobeit. --DanielCD 13:52, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No, I put the section in, but basically I'm a biologist and have probably had more experience with this sort of thing. It's in here because its a useful social phenomenon, nothing to do with science, whilst. It's deliberately at the bottom of the article, so the law can be summarised and its history and implications given. If someone bothers to read that far, they might as well know about its misuse by creationists. It is an issue for the whole of science really, though biology gets the brunt of it. See this essay by a physicist. Anyone with any knowledge of science can see that it is patent nonsense, but let them see, there is no need to censor it, let it speak for itself. If there is a particular creationist issue with any topic in biology, I will try to put links in to their POV — let these people speak for themselves — the best advert for science and rationalism is a fundamentalist Christian. Dunc_Harris|☺ 15:28, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Makes me feel a bit better about it. --DanielCD 15:36, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The argument of the second law and biological evolution, while I don't believe it's a good one, is often misconstrued. That the second law of thermodynamics poses a "direct contradiction" against biological evolution is not an entirely accurate statement of the creationist position. The second law suggests a tendency to go from order to disorder. A number of creationists claim (however incorrectly) that evolution lacks the means to overcome this tendency. Creationists do however claim a "direct contradiction" between the second law and what could be called cosmological evolution. What creationists often claim is that an overall increase in cosmic order is a violation of the second law (since the universe as a whole is taken to be an isolated system). Perhaps this creationist position is flawed also. Nonetheless, misrepresenting the creationist position (however flawed) as it pertains to biological evolution will not do much good. Hence, my attempts to expand the matter in the section. (Wade A. Tisthammer)

This, like the section you wrote, is strongly POV, and reflects the views of only one of the references, not the general state of the arguments that are offered. 68.6.40.203 03:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The section I wrote above is POV in the sense that I don't believe the creationist argument was a good one. As for the section of Wikipedia, how is it POV? See what I said under "creationism 2: the Return" section of this web page where this issue is discussed, particularly the part about “Merely correcting the misunderstandings and pointing out what the actual creationist position is doesn't violate the NPOV (neutral point of view) policy.”

--Wade A. Tisthammer (9/12/2005)

Wade, I'm a little mystified at your attempt to water down the standard creationist stand wrt the Second Law of Thermodynamics. For example, this article [2] states unequivocally that the 2nd Law alone is sufficient to "to preclude the spontaneous evolutionary origin of the immense biological order required for the origin of life". That sounds like a "direct contradiction" to me. "Christiananswers", where it appears, is a pretty representative creationist website and the article in question was also referenced at Answers in Genesis, another mainstream site. Indeed, Googling around, the only instances I saw of the sort of watered down version you give as "representative" are in response to scientific criticism, never as a first statement. You can't have it both ways. Either the 2nd Law precludes evolution or it doesn't (and of course it doesn't). There's no "kinda sorta" in science. -jc Cirejcon 16:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

They may sincerely believe that the 2nd law prohibits evolution, but how exactly this law prohibits evolution is often misunderstood (e.g. rarely, if ever, do I see a creationist claiming that all systems invariably increase in disorder). If you think I am "watering down" the argument feel free to visit [this web page] which includes a number of verifiable references.

It is true that the "representative position" often only appears in response to scientific criticism (it should be noted that they frequently do respond to scientific criticism), and I think this is the fault of creationists for not describing their arguments more clearly. Nonetheless, this certainly doesn't mean that anti-creationists are justified in ignoring the actual creationist position and construct criticisms that depend on ignoring it. Almost every creationist responds to the "open system" argument, including the very same web page you quoted.

--Wade A. Tisthammer (9/23/2005)

Not to beat a dead horse, but I also stumbled on this article [3] (also frequently cited on the web). It states, in bold letters, very near the top "The second law presents an insurmountable problem to the concept of a natural, mechanistic process: (1) by which the physical universe could have formed spontaneously from nothing, and (2) by which biological life could have arisen and diversified (also spontaneously) from a non-living, inanimate world.".

Again, exactly how this law poses a problem for evolution is often misunderstood. This article too responds to the open system argument.

--Wade A. Tisthammer (9/23/2005)

I question whether the section on Creationism really has any place in this article at all. If the idea is to illustrate one of the many arguments Creationists employ, the page devoted to illustrating that debate is by far a better place for this particular section. As it stands, it seems to me to merely be another attempt to cast as wide of a net as possible in discrediting the various theories put forth by Creationists. --DavemanDeluxe 05:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Creationism and the second law: the wording of the encyclopedic entry

From the wording that was displayed on 9/23/2005:

Most of the creationist claims regarding the Second Law of Thermodynamics are based on the popularized "Order can't come from chaos" representation. In fact, the law is a very specific rule regarding energy flow, and from the standpoint of energy flow, the only real difference between, say, DNA evolving and DNA replicating from existing DNA are the timescales involved. The same could be said of trees growing, fetuses developing, etc. Thus, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, while used below as a metaphor, has no scientific validity in this context.

Well, that's not entirely true. It is true that there exists a general tendency for things to go from order to disorder because of the entropy increasing in the universe. To say that it has "no scientific validity" is an oversimplification.

However, the details of the argument vary, which can lead to confusion. For example, while some creationists claim that the 2nd Law presents "an insurmountable problem" for evolution at any level 1, others have claimed that the second law suggests a general tendency to go from order to disorder and that biological evolution lacks the means to overcome this tendency.

The problem I have with this passage is that these aren't necessarily two different views. Even Morris claims that the second law poses an insurmountable problem for biological evolution, it's just that how the law poses a problem is often misunderstood. In short, I think some rewording is in order if this is to be accurate and NPOV.

--Wade A. Tisthammer (9/23/2005)

[edit] New Wording: Re-inserting the issue

Here's the wording I proposed:

• Many creationists claim that the second law of thermodynamics poses a problem for biological evolution. The vast majority of scientists reject this claim.

A new slightly different wording was subsequently proposed:

• Some creationists claim that the second law of thermodynamics poses a problem for biological evolution. The vast majority of scientists reject this claim.

Slightly less precise, but still "good enough" I think. But if we start to insert rebuttals that misconstrue the actual creationist position (e.g. "the earth is not a closed system"), we might be obligated in showing what the actual creationist position is, and it seems that many editors here are unwilling to have that happen. It isn’t quite right to criticize a position without even explaining what that position is; among other reasons it won’t be clear why the rebuttal has any relevance (so what if the earth is not a closed system?). Thus, "short and sweet" is may be our best option, unless we want a repeat of history. --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

As indicated earlier, two examples would be:

• Some creationists claim that the second law of thermodynamics poses a problem for biological evolution. However, since the earth is not a closed system, the law does not apply.
• Some creationists claim that the second law of thermodynamics poses a problem for biological evolution. The vast majority of scientists reject this claim, based upon a number of reasons, including that the earth is not a closed system.

As I mentioned earlier, this objection is based on a misrepresentation of the actual creationist position [4]. It's the sort of reason why I started editing in the first place. When I started clearing up the misunderstandings of the creationist claim, it eventually led up to the removal of the entire section. If we're not going to describe the actual creationist claim, it is all the more inappropriate to put forth rebuttals that are based upon a distorted version of the creationist argument. Hence, something like,

Many creationists claim that the second law of thermodynamics poses a problem for biological evolution. The vast majority of scientists reject this claim.

May very well be the best compromise to our predicament. I suggest we stick with it. --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] creationism 2: the Return

Okay, there is a suggestion that the creationism section be expanded. Okay, but not the POV rubbish that anons (66.... and 160..... ) have been adding. To start off with "the creationist argument is often misconstrued" is POV; it is not construed it is like all creationism, empty rhetoric, which ironically results from the miscontruing of the second law. Dunc|☺ 20:07, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To quote, “it is not construed it is like all creationism, empty rhetoric” and you're accusing me of being POV? Like it or not, a number of versions on the web page regarding the second law distort (sometimes badly) what the creationist position actually is. Tell me, what is to be gained from attacking positions opponents do not hold? What is to be gained by putting forth a distorted version of the actual argument? What is wrong with pointing out what the creationist argument actually is?

You're making a tu quoque argument; we all have a POV, and you certainly don't cease to have one (which is clear from your religious apologetics published on the web) just because someone else does. But this is all irrelevant; the question is whether the language in the article is POV, and it clearly is. For one thing, there is no single 2LOT argument made by creationists, and the one claimed to be a miscontrual isn't -- some, in fact many, creationists make it. 68.6.40.203 03:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't aware I had many religious apologetics published on the web (enough for anyone to find easily anyway); since I generally focus more on philosophical theism as opposed to the branch of theology devoted to the defense of Christianity. But more to the point, it is true that there is no single 2nd law argument used by all creationists at all times. But there is such a thing as a mainstream view put out by creationist leaders. If you want a list of citations attached to my claims, see this web page. From what I've seen and read, I doubt there are that "many" creationists who make the claim that all systems invariably increase in entropy. Until you provide some documentation, I suspect you are among the many anticreationists I've seen who have misunderstood the actual creationist position. I should point out though that creationists themselves are often to blame for not making their arguments sufficiently clear.

Did I make a tu quoque argument? You seem to be accusing me of “a retort charging an adversary with being or doing what he criticizes in others” which is what the phrase “tu quoque” means. I don't see why that's the case here. Care to justify your claim? Remember my “empty rhetoric” quote was attacking the justification that creationism was not misconstrued. The said individual removed my so-called “POV” text and gave justification that was clearly POV, as I pointed out. Was my version of the article actually POV? Note what I say below:

Merely correcting the misunderstandings and pointing out what the actual creationist position is doesn't violate the NPOV (neutral point of view) policy. Note that I also pointed out that the majority of scientists believe the creationist claims to be false right after I cleared up popular misunderstandings and what the creationist claims actually were. What more would you want for it to be NPOV?

If anything, it's a violation of NPOV to put forth inaccurate positions of what the actual position is before attacking it. Attack it if you want to, but at least do the homework of getting the creationist position right to begin with.

--Wade A. Tisthammer (8/17/2005)

How about we change it from misconstrued (which to me has connotations of a deliberate act of Straw Man) to 'misunderstood'- and we don't specify which side of the debate the misunderstanding is on? I know I have, for a fact, debated with Creationists and/or Intelligent Designers who believe the Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibits biological evolution, so my rebuttal to those is in no way a straw Man that this section seems to accuse me of. There may be cases where Evolutionary supporters have taken a Thermodynamics argumented and assumed it refers to biological evolution when it really means cosmological origins (which really isn't an argument against biological evolution, but I digress). It seems to me that misunderstood, or another similar word, is the most NPOV we can use for this situation.

I was not aware that any such connotations of the world "misconstrued" existed. If so, I'll change the wording accordingly. Although creationists have often claimed that the second law of thermodynamics poses a problem for biological evolution, what creationists exactly mean by this is often misunderstood. For instance, I have seldom if ever seen a creationist claim that all systems invariably go towards disorder (the closest I've seen is that all systems tend towards disorder--a big difference). And yet this is exactly the kind of position I've seen anti-creationists attack over and over again. BTW, haven't the creationists you've debated responded to the infamous "open system" argument and claim that more is required for a suitable increase in order? If so it may be the case that you misunderstood them if you believed that the creationist(s) was claiming entropy invariably increases in all systems.

--Wade A. Tisthammer (9/12/2005)

[edit] Creationism stuff

"..entropy can decrease in an open system, but simply applying energy to a system will not decrease entropy." So what, it's impossible for energy to flow anywhere? Nothing can happen and everything is static? It's impossible to throw a ball into the air? Water can't splash? This stuff is complete nonsense and it should be stated that it is wrong since it is. It's not a point of view. --DanielCD 15:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I suspect you badly misunderstood the meaning of the sentence you quoted. Consider this description of the creationist claim,

Morris and others claim that certain criteria are needed for order (at least the sort of order evolution requires to increase in organisms) to increase....An open system and available energy is part of the criteria, but there are others. Generally throwing raw energy into a system does not produce order but instead destroys the order already there (e.g. an atomic bomb introduced and detonated into a system can release a very large amount of energy with very little net increase in order).

I thus doubt the text you quoted meant to imply that energy flow is impossible.

--Wade A. Tisthammer (8/17/2005)

I removed a paragraph because it's wrong. Nothing says "disorganized energy" has to increase entropy. The universe has all kinds of "disorganized energy" in it creating forms with massively decreased entropy all the time. What's a star? What's a galaxy? Are we trying to say that no complexity can exist in nature without people creating it? We have to adhere to the scientific definitions not just what something "looks like." There are highly ordered systems everywhere that occur naturally. --DanielCD 15:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is it my imagination or is the whole 'creationism' section very bad science on both sides? It confuses energy and Entropy, and ignores the possibility that what appears to be a higher degree of order does not in fact result in decreased entropy. DJ Clayworth 21:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that many (most?) people don't have a very good understanding of entropy and the second law of theromodynamics. I hope that Wikipedia will help more people than ever before reach the good understanding that we all wish everyone had.

While I agree with DanielCD on the correctness of that statement, I would prefer to edit the article so that it's full of correct statements. Perhaps something like

"Adding energy to a system always decreases the entropy of that system. For example, the entropy of a particular mass of H20 is always lower at higher temperatures."

I would add this sentence to the article. But it's been too long since I took thermo. Is this *always* true? --DavidCary 18:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It's the other way around. For your example: Adding heat to water increases entropy as the water molecules will begin to change their state (i.e., will move around more rapidly, and with enough heat will eventually become steam). In addition, the heat from the water will dissipate into the room, disturbing the air molecules and increasing entropy.

Since some folks on here have been pondering the claim that entropy rules out evolution, interested parties might benefit from the following link: [Index to Creationist Claims] Jim62sch 10:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On the link “Creationism and the second law of thermodynamics”

On the link regarding creationism and the second law (the one that attempts to clear up misunderstandings of this creationist claim) was removed on the grounds that:

some anticreationists mistakenly confuse “tendency” to mean “invariability.”" - untrue

I find it somewhat interesting that this individual assumed so considering the various verifiable references the article often gives. But in any case, I can provide a counterexample. See this web page which says, "Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder." Creationist argue tendency (and the web article cites a verifiable reference) not invariability. This is not to say that the creationist argument is a good one (I personally think it's bad argument) but little is to be gained from distorting the creationist position. And of course, little is to be gained by removing links that clear up such misunderstandings. Wade A. Tisthammer 22:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

There's something of POV comment regarding the link I had to remove:

but unfortunately still fails to appreciate the ubiquity of self-organisation [sic] in physics and nature

One problem is that this statement is false. The web article even gives a specific example of self-organization (a snowflake) and points out that the creationists are talking about a different kind of order. Second, the comment is a little POV. Notice that we could make similar remarks about any pseudoscience link starting with "fails to appreciate [scientific fact]" but this is not the place to do it. This is not to say that criticizing creationism is wrong, but if you want to do so it would be better (in this case) just to add a link that attacks creationism regarding the second law (and indeed, one has already been included). Wade A. Tisthammer 23:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you have against my perfectly orthodox UK spelling of self-organisation; and I stand by what I wrote that the link's position is better described as "more nuanced" than "more neutral". But I've had another look at your article, so let me humbly offer some comments.

1. Continuous entropy increase => the big bang. One could quibble that the continuous expansion of the steady-state theory could also produce a continuous entropy increase. Either way, I'm not sure how it's meant to help your argument; or what it's supposed to have to do with evolution. If you're arguing for a creator, in fact I don't think you need to prove an initial state. I would have thought it was enough to put the point: "Look at the universe. Doesn't it have a huge information content. Where did that information come from?" If people want to believe in a creator, it seems as convincing to ask that question (I think the philosophers call it the question of contingency) about the universe of now as it would be about the universe of the Planck time. On the other hand, if people don't want to believe in a creator, I think they'd be equally unconvinced by the "Big Bang needs a first mover" position.

2. Organized complexity. As I think you also imply correctly, but could amplify further, this also doesn't seem to have much to do with the Second Law. Systems without a "program" show self-organising structure, and the appearance of increasingly complex forms. So do live systems with a "program" -- with some of the complexity of the programs apparently increasing over geological time. Neither of these seem to have anything to do with the Second Law. The question left seems to be whether a program could evolve spontaneously -- again, not much to do with the Second Law. Some scientists have guessed that some of the autocatalytic properties of RNA might have helped bootstrap up the whole process. That may or may not be well founded. But it seems like hubris to posit that nature and/or random chance couldn't have found a way, somewhere in the cosmos.

-- Jheald 01:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You said, "I'm not sure what you have against my perfectly orthodox UK spelling of self-organisation." I don't necessarily, but in English school (in the States) the [sic] was often seen as a standard thing to do when misspellings (relative to the U.S. way of things) were done. I've even seen it in Americans quoting differently-spelled UK texts. But if you wish I'll omit it.

The convention on Wikipedia is that both US and UK English spellings are acceptable. Writing [sic] means "yes, he really did write that, even though you the reader may very reasonably think it's a mistake". In the context of UK spellings on WP that's unjustified, and could be taken to be offensive. -- Jheald 13:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what "Continuous entropy increase => the big bang" means, nor am I sure what argument you are referring to when you said, "your argument," particularly since the web page is more about clearing up misunderstanding rather than advocating the creationist position. In regards to the creationists however, the argument is that if the universe were infinitely old entropy would have claimed the universe. This has not happened, therefore the universe is not infinitely old. If it is not infinitely old it began to exist at some point, and creationists claim that this implies some kind of creator for the universe.

Note however, that this argument is flawed. An infinite universe, continually increasing in total information content (as proposed by the old steady-state model) could also have steadily increasing entropy for an infinite time without having succumbed to heat-death. -- Jheald 13:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It is generally agreed upon that the universe does not contain an infinite amount of mass/energy in part because of the big bang theory. Still, it is true that as a result of the expansion maximum level of entropy (joules per Kelvin) is never reached, even though the universe heads towards that level. Given that the universe began to exist, the universe gets older and older (15 billion years old, 16 billion, 17...) but never actually reaches an infinite age. If energy is conserved (per the first law) and if more energy becomes unavailable for further work with each process, it does seem to be the case that a literal infinite amount of time would render all energy unavailable for further work (assuming, of course, that the passage of an infinite amount of time were possible). I don't see how steady-state models could avoid that without violating thermodynamics. Wade A. Tisthammer 20:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The steady-state theory suggested that new matter and energy are continually coming into existence at low entropy, and therefore the universe could have existed forever. Yes, there are currently pretty strong reasons for buying into the big bang, more or less -- the model accounts pretty well for a lot of observations. But as the reasons go, "otherwise the universe would have already reached heat-death" is not a particularly good one.

Why not? About the only way to avoid it is to deny the laws of thermodynamics. Are you willing to do that? --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose the Steady State Theory does appear to violate the First Law of Thermodynamics, because of its suggestion of continual creation of matter and energy in deep space. Its supporters (the majority of leading cosmologists until the mid '60s) were willing to accept that. Interestingly, some of the most recent research on Dark Energy produces mathematics which is very similar to the Steady State model, with similar consequences, as discussed at Entropy#Entropy_and_cosmology.

The best reasons to believe in the Big Bang remain (i) the Cosmic Microwave Background; and (ii) the increasingly consistent estimates for the age of the universe from different sources. There's enough still unclear about cosmological-scale physics that any argument based on entropy should come well down the list. -- Jheald 23:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC).

Perhaps so, but the second law is a creationist argument nonetheless to argue against an infinitely old universe. Modern theists (e.g. William Craig) typically use the big bang theory and evidences thereof as well. --Wade A. Tisthammer 00:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You said, "Systems without a "program" show self-organising structure" and this is perhaps true. But most counterexamples I've seen (e.g. snowflakes) do not have the kind of order creationists refer to. As I said in the web page, "This is 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." Whether or not the mutation-selection mechanism creates increases in organized complexity is of course open to debate, in part because this sort of thing has never been observed (at least not directly). Although live systems have a "program" to work with, this is not a "program" to increase in complexity of a species. In neo-Darwinism, this requires the use of random mutations (although they act on a "program," the complexity-generating mutations cannot themselves really be said to satisfy the third criterion because they are random).

Random mutation-selection mechanisms can evolve complexity -- just look at the success of genetic algorithms in evolving complex structured solutions to better satisfy selection criteria.

In any case, my understanding was that the creationists you were citing were not requiring a "program [intrinsically constructed] to increase complexity" in order to harness energy in an energy flow, and create organised structures in a manner compatible with the second law; merely an internal program.

Furthermore, a waterfall for example creates complex structure, which evolves over time. In that case, merely the laws of physics are sufficient "program".

My guess is that what's really being seen as the dividing line between an interesting and a non-interesting "kind" of order is the ability of a system, sometimes called a von Neumann machine,to replicate itself, spread into new environments, and replicate its previous behaviour.

I can't see that the question of whether or not it's possible to cross that dividing line has anything to do with the Second Law. -- Jheald 13:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The mutation-selection mechanisms in genetic algorithms are themselves literally the result of a pre-planned program, so I don't think this is a counterexample. If we saw mutation-selection mechanisms in the natural world (especially biology) exhibit increases in organized complexity (e.g. the development--however slowly--of a new organ in a species) then we would have a counterexample. Waterfalls are not an example of "organized complexity" any more than snowflakes are, so they too are not a counterexample. The only connection this all has to the second law is overcoming the general tendency towards disorder implied by the second law. This connection to the second law is of course a very loose one, which is a big reason why I don't think this is a very good argument. Wade A. Tisthammer 20:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

This (undefined) notion of "organised complexity" seems very selective -- and selective after the facts, which is dangerous in any theory. Can I ask you to comment directly, am I right in thinking that the real touchstone for this "organised complexity" is von Neumann replicative behaviour? (yes, behaviour with a 'u' - sic!!)

Why is the eddy structure of a waterfall not an example of "organised complexity"? It shows complexity, in that regular structures reappear again and again, giving a particular well-defined repertoire over time, even though it never repeats itself; and the whole thing is organised by the laws of fluid mechanics. Indeed it even evolves, as the watercourse slowly redefines its environment with time. Of course there's not much replication, mutation and selection going on, so one can't really talk about a waterfall's "fitness"; but it does seem quite a reasonable example of complexity and self-organisation.

The main point about the waterfall, is that it shows that formation of ordered, complex structure is not unexpected against the background of a steady entropy flow -- in fact it is overwhelmingly observed, again and again, in physical systems (and furthermore, good physical explanations have been put up as to why that should be, quite generally).

As to the question of whether mutation-selection mechanisms can increase organised complexity, genetic algorithms still seem to me to be an open-and-shut answer. The complexity of the solution increases from nothing, driven only by the mutation-selection mechanism of the program. And the complexity can be made pretty-much open-ended, for example in pattern- or feature-recognition systems, where some of the "moves" are to randomly swap in or swap out features from other members of the population, as well as modifying the ones in hand. What aspect of "organised" complexity are you saying is missing from this model?

Biological models also readily show adaptation to changing environment -- for example the changes observed in bacterial genomes, in well-known experiments where the bacteria were stressed in particular ways. Or look at the selection, mutation and change in influenza viruses.

Whatever this "organised complexity" is (and I still don't see any clear definition), it seems evident that the Second Law of Thermodynamics has no bearing on it. -- Jheald 21:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I haven't seen a creationist explicitly define the term, but the impression I am given is that it has to do with the kind of organization reminiscent of machines. Examples of things containing organized complexity include automobiles, photocopiers, and single-celled organisms. A waterfall misses the mark terribly for being an example of organized complexity. After all, it’s just water falling down; not quite possessing the kind of organization a photocopier has, for instance.

Mutation-selection mechanisms observed thus far don't seem to increase the complexity (e.g. a species evolving a new organ) of an organism, instead the changes seem to be more horizontal. Thus, these changes to do not seem to be examples of increasing organized complexity either. --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

You said,

The question left seems to be whether a program could evolve spontaneously -- again, not much to do with the Second Law. Some scientists have guessed that some of the autocatalytic properties of RNA might have helped bootstrap up the whole process. That may or may not be well founded. But it seems like hubris to posit that nature and/or random chance couldn't have found a way, somewhere in the cosmos.

Ah, now we are getting to abiogenesis. I wouldn't say hubris. There are a number of chemical problems with abiogenesis. Biochemist Michael Behe has likened the issue to a groundhog trying to cross a thousand-lane freeway. And one of the chemical problems is how to get RNA to begin with (one that's even tougher than getting functional proteins). Wrong or not, ID adherents are arguing from what they do know (or at least what they think they know) about chemistry and mathematics that allegedly makes abiogenesis unreasonable (though of course, a number of people also argue from the global disciplinary failure to find any possible way life could have evolved without artificial intervention). Creationists, in this case, argue from “as far as all observations go” that an increase in organized complexity requires a “pre-planned program” (among other things). The disputable point appears to be "there does exist a way to overcome the obstacles and we just haven't discovered it yet" versus "we haven't discovered a way because it just doesn't exist." I suspect the latter is true, but perhaps only time will tell. For what it’s worth, at least this particular ID/creationist claim is falsifiable. Wade A. Tisthammer 01:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It's certainly a challenge, and the scientific requirement is to continue trying to understand the challenge more and more sharply. Just to put up one's hands and say "can't be done" is not the scientific approach. But again, this has nothing to do with the Second Law. -- Jheald 13:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

At some point it becomes acceptable to "give up" and accept artificial intervention, e.g. when determining if a body died via natural causes or planned murder. The disputable point of course is how to apply that to evolutionary biology. To say the issue has nothing to do with the second law is not entirely true. It has to do with overcoming the general tendency towards disorder, but as I said earlier this is a very loose connection to the second law (and not, I think, particularly good science). Wade A. Tisthammer 20:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The link was removed again, this time the justification was:

The link itself contains more POV than the comment. It is by no means neutral. It claims creationists makes points like "2nd law is a tendency" which is actually the scientific counter-argument.

The main purpose of the link is to clear up misunderstandings of the creationist claims, to present the claims as is often (though not always) without comment as to the veracity of those claims (hence the web page is somewhat more neutral regarding those claims). Those times the web page does comment, it actually attacks the creationist claims (so it is not entirely NPOV). However, the fact that it explains what the creationist position actually is does not make it POV towards creationism. Note that the article itself does not claim the creationist argument to be correct. Indeed, the author himself says,

I do not think this argument against evolution is a particularly good one, but I do think critics of creationism should at least do their homework in getting the creationist argument right to begin with before attacking it. There is little profit in attacking positions opponents do not hold.

Additionally, links are allowed to be POV; e.g. the pro-creationist link. I may not agree with everything the links (whether creationist or evolutionist) say, but they are legitimate and often useful for explaining different views for those curious enough to want to look at them. Wade A. Tisthammer 22:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boltzmann's view

It seemed appropriate to include the following statement by Boltzmann here, which seems to me to put the discussion about entropy and the complexity of life into quite nice focus:

The general struggle for existence of living creatures is therefore not one for the basic elements - the elements of all organisms are present in abundance in air, water, and the soil - or for energy, which is unfortunately contained in abundance in any body in the form of unconvertible heat, but it is a struggle for the entropy that is available through the passage of energy from the hot Sun to the cold Earth. -- Ludwig Boltzmann (1886)

-- Jheald 21:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tisthammer, what is your objection?

Why do you keep reverting? The article says NOTHING about creationist claims; so how can it be "misconstrued"? Infinity0 ^talk 13:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

As considered further in the article on self-organisation, this is a misconception: it is not correct. - does not state it's a creation claim; just that that view is incorrect. There's nothing POV or wrong about that sentence. Infinity0 ^talk 13:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's look at what the article says:

It is occasionally perceived, sometimes in the context of debates about evolution and creationism, that the Second Law is incompatible with self-organisation or the coming into existence of complex systems.

....

The above discussion is not meant to be a comprehensive synopsis of all claims that have ever been asserted involving the 2nd law. However, no exposition of such creationist claims have survived analysis in scientific peer-reviewed fora of primary research for thermodynamics and biology. [emphasis added]

To say that the article says nothing about creationist claims is obviously untrue. As I have pointed out earlier with multiple citations, creationists do not claim that the second law is incompatible with the coming into existence of complexity per se. We thus should not insinuate false representations of creationist claims in the creation-evolution debate any more than we should insinuate false representations of evolution. --Wade A. Tisthammer 05:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

HOK. To say nothing of the countless number of creationist I've met who HAVE used this argument; according to you, what IS the creationst argument then?? Infinity0 ^talk 11:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

And please don't just give a link, I want to hear it in your own words; and don't waffle either. 2 paragraphs should be enough to lay an outline. Infinity0 ^talk 11:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

As I have said several times before, the general idea (when applied to biological evolution) is that the second law implies a general tendency towards disorder, and that evolution lacks the means to overcome this tendency. (Allegedly, certain criteria are needed in addition to an open system.) Sadly, the creationist argument is widely misconstrued. I have seen it occur many, many times and I am not the only one to have observed this (see the Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate citation I gave earlier).

And please think about this. What is the purpose of the “Complex systems and the Second Law” section? If it is to point out that complexity and self-organization can occur without violating the second law, note that my wording of the section does precisely that. If it is to attack the creationist position (which seems to be the case given the revert war) we should not attack a distorted version of the actual creationist position. --Wade A. Tisthammer 01:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Infinity0, this but a continuation of the weeks-long campaign Wade has been conducting to insert a small bit of irrelevant creationist pov into the article. We've experienced similar behavior from Wade at Talk:Intelligent design where he now has dominated 2 very long archived talk pages and is working on a third. Reasoning and appeasing him is a waste of your time. Wade is going to insist on his terms no matter what you say or do, and will drag this issue out to wear you down with disruptive and tendentious objections. See the above half of this talk page for evidence of what I mean and to see that consensus was reached to omit the his passage despite Wade's insistance and subsequent ignoring of it. FeloniousMonk 05:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Felonious, what creationist POV are you talking about? You have not explained, despite my requests. Felonious, you have been disruptive and unwilling to abide by Wikipedia policy, behavior that we have seen at Talk:Intelligent design for some time now (I request a citation of a leading ID opponent making argument X to show it is not original research, you then refuse my request and still maintain the argument should be present). Apparently, reasoning is a waste of time. You insist on your terms no matter what I say or do with your specious objections. You evidently often start seeing things that aren't there (e.g. my insertion of a creationist POV, but I have inserted no such thing). --Wade A. Tisthammer 01:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

References to creationism belongs in creationism. References to why it is right / wrong belong in creation-evolution controversey. In no way does creationism belong in an article on thermodynamics. I think removing all references to it in the article would be appropriate. This isn't censorship - does the article on fossils have a reference to creationism? Does the article on the solar system have a reference to creationism? The link here is so tenuous it definitely does not warrant a mention and only serves to weaken the main focus. I'm going to remove the references. With no references, there can be no controversy. --Ignignot 21:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm putting the links back in, which was the compromise reached (by consensus) before this whole mess (of putting back mention of the creationist argument in the main entry) started. --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thermodynamics has no direct link to creationism. Creationism would not be mentioned on a class on thermodynamics. Books on thermodynamics do not mention creationism. Books on creationism sometimes do - so put the reference thermodynamics in creationism or in the evolution-creation controversy pages. The only other person that you have reached a consensus with as far as I can tell is user:Jheald, and every other person on this talk page is against it. You have only kept creationism on the page by reverting again and again. As I said before, not every creationist argument against evolution and science should be put in the corresponding articles. They have a place already in creationism and the creation-evolution controversy. In significant links like evolution there is also a mention. But thermodynamics is too far removed. --Ignignot 18:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I actually have seen books on thermodynamics make reference to creationism (similarly true with biology). It's very interesting that you claim, "You have only kept creationism on the page by reverting again and again." I actually have been trying to remove the creationist wording from "Complex systems and the Second Law" section. The consensus on leaving the links in seemed to be reach a long time ago (around October 2005 methinks). For a time, there were three people (KC and Jheald and myself) who agreed on a short mention (originally, a single sentence). A little later, there was some dispute regarding an apparent straw man of the creationist position. FeloniousMonk often spearheaded the edits, a disruptive activity since he repeatedly ignored my citations demonstrating the straw man. Mercifully, Ignignot concurred with my attempt to remove mention of creationism from the "Complex systems and the Second Law" section.

Mention of creationism in the article was present long before my involvement. Like it or not, it is a significant minority view (probably why it was included in the first place). If a short mention cannot be given, listing a few links seems to be the least we can do. --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

A minority of a minority is usually not a significant minority view. When it arrived is irrelevant; whether it should be here is. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Like it or not, this creationist argument is a significant minority view. Perhaps when the section was included is not relevant (and I never said it was). I do find it interesting however that increasing hostility to its inclusion happened shortly after the creationist position was accurately represented (before my involvement to correct the misrepresentation, the section survived for over a year), and a link that focused on correcting creationist misrepresentation was removed twice. (See the "Fun facts" list I made above.) Why do you suppose that is? --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I have made a request for mediation, because it is obvious that there will be no end to this without some "official" outside help. Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_12_2005_Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics. --Ignignot 19:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent idea, Ignignot. We seem to have stalemate here. We could do a strawpoll, though, it may be helpful. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The "Creationist position" ?

At issue in the article is this statement (emphasis added by Tisthammerw):

It is occasionally perceived, sometimes in the context of debates about evolution and creationism, that the Second Law is incompatible with self-organisation or the coming into existence of complex systems.

Tisthammerw cites the following where he claims that the above is not the Creationist position:

• http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp
• http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/secondlaw.htm

On the other hand, here are anti-evolution links from the first two pages of a Google search for 'evolution "second law"'. I think they more than justify the relevance of the statement put up and then refuted in the article.

• 4. Second Law of Thermodynamics - ChristianAnswers.Net

" ... over eons of time, billions of things are supposed to have developed upward, becoming more orderly and complex. However, this basic law of science (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) reveals the exact opposite. In the long run, complex, ordered arrangements actually tend to become simpler and more disorderly with time. There is an irreversible downward trend ultimately at work throughout the universe. Evolution, with its ever increasing order and complexity, appears impossible in the natural world".

"'Of all the statements that have been made with respect to theories on the origin of life, the statement that the Second Law of Thermodynamics poses no problem for an evolutionary origin of life is the most absurd... The operation of natural processes on which the Second Law of Thermodynamics is based is alone sufficient, therefore, to preclude the spontaneous evolutionary origin of the immense biological order required for the origin of life.' (Duane Gish, Ph.D. in biochemistry from University of California at Berkeley)

"If Evolution is true, there must be an extremely powerful force or mechanism at work in the cosmos that can steadily defeat the powerful, ultimate tendency toward "disarrangedness" brought by the 2nd Law. If such an important force or mechanism is in existence, it would seem it should be quite obvious to all scientists. Yet, the fact is, no such force of nature has been found.

"A number of scientists believe the 2nd Law, when truly understood, is enough to refute the theory of Evolution. In fact, it is one of the most important reasons why various Evolutionists have dropped their theory in favor of Creationism."

• 16. The Second Law of Thermodynamics and Evolution

"It would be granted by most any scientist that simple molecules do not normally combine with one another to form extremely complex molecules (decreased entropy) unless the scientists themselves carefully and intentionally supply directed energy in just the right circumstances (carefully arranged by the scientists). Because of the second law of thermodynamics, we do not expect simple molecules to become complex ones in a random fashion."

• 18. Does evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics?

"if the tendency of all chemicals is to fall apart rather than get more complex, the theory of the chemical evolution of life is in serious trouble and the two statements cited above would be wrong. The second law is a law of simplification, and its work has been observed in every laboratory in the world. It is opposite in effect to deChardin's "law of complexification. "

• 20. Wonderings About Evolution

"The Second Law of Thermodynamics may be the most verified law of science. It states that systems become more disordered over time, unless energy is supplied and directed to create order. Evolutionists says that the opposite has taken place - that order increased over time, without any directed energy. How can this be? Evolutionists commonly object that the Second Law applies to closed, or isolated systems, and that the Earth is certainly not a closed system (it gets lots of raw energy from the Sun, for example). However, all systems, whether open or closed, tend to deteriorate. For example, living organisms are open systems but they all decay and die. Also, the universe in total is a closed system. To say that the chaos of the big bang has transformed itself into the human brain with its 120 trillion connections is a clear violation of the Second Law. "

-- Jheald 11:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC).

Jheald is right, and tisthammerw is wrong. FeloniousMonk 19:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Am I Felonious? Let's examine this a little further. From Second Law of Thermodynamics - ChristianAnswers.Net

Outside forces can increase order for a time (through the expenditure of relatively large amounts of energy, and through the input of design).

Obviously, this website does not say that the second law is truly incompatible with increases of order. Otherwise, the website would not have made the above statement. So what does it say?

The natural tendency of complex, ordered arrangements and systems is to become simpler and more disorderly with time. [emphasis mine]

As I have pointed out before, a number of anticreationists seem to confuse "tendency" with "invariability" (apparently, this talk section serves as yet another example). Next let's look at The Second Law of Thermodynamics and Evolution. This website also does not say that the second law prohibits increases of order. On the contrary,

Illustrations abound. Men can build houses, automobiles, watches, computers, etc. by application of purposeful, directed energy.

Next website, Does evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics?:

The second law of thermodynamics could well be stated as follows: "In any ordered system, open or closed, there exists a tendency for that system to decay to a state of disorder, which tendency can only be suspended or reversed by an external source of ordering energy directed by an informational program and transformed through an ingestion-storage-converter mechanism into the specific work required to build up the complex structure of that system. [emphasis mine]

Again, that's tendency, not invariability. Regarding the open system argument, the website claims that evolution lacks the means to utilize this energy:

It doesn't matter whether the earth is "open" or "closed" as a system since, without a machine to direct the energy, the chemical evolution of life cannot utilize the solar energy.

Next, Wonderings About Evolution

It states that systems become more disordered over time, unless energy is supplied and directed to create order.

Again, the website claims that evolution lacks the means to properly direct this energy to create the necessary order.

As for Duane Gish, I advise you to read Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics by the very same individual, who also makes similar arguments and even devotes an entire chapter to the thermodynamics argument.

Note how terribly easy it was to repeatedly misunderstand the creationist position. It has been my experience that with avid opponents in controversies, the atmosphere is quite conducive for people misunderstanding their opponents. Not surprisingly, the misunderstood positions tend to be much easier to attack than the real thing. I hope we've learned a lesson from all of this. I'll make the revert to remove the falsely represented creationist position. --Wade A. Tisthammer 02:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Wade I think the quotes you have chosen make the point perfectly. They systematically suggest that some sort of "purposeful" external direction of energy is needed if complex organised structures are to appear and persist. That is false.

BTW, I think you also misunderstand the meaning of "tendency" as applied to the second law. In the limits when classical thermodynamics applies, (ie macroscopic systems, no infinite-length correlations) the increase of entropy is not a "tendency", it is an inevitability. Probability 1.

-- Jheald 04:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC).

Perhaps the creationist claims are false (and you still do not appear to fully understand the position; I recommend you visit this web page), but the claim that the second law is incompatible with "the coming into existence of complex systems" is not a typical creationist claim as I have shown. So why did you put it back in that section? I'll have to make the revert (again).

BTW, what is wrong with my wording? I have explained the reason behind my reverts (the other version gives a false impression of the creationist position) what is the reason behind yours? I have, after all, cleared up the apparent misconception you seem so concerned about (i.e. that the second law is not incompatible with increases in order). So why do you dislike my version?

As for "tendency," no I am not misunderstanding how it is applied to the second law. I was saying what the creationists claim (a tendency towards disorder; supposedly evolution lacks the means to overcome this tendency). Please read more carefully. Not all systems increase in entropy. (Of course, in isolated systems, entropy increases are quite inevitable). --Wade A. Tisthammer 04:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

But Wade, all your quotes systematically do assert what in the article I have claimed gets asserted, namely that the Second Law is "incompatible with autonomous self-organisation or the coming into existence of complex systems".

Read them. Systematically they claim that for complex organised structures to appear and persist, some sort of purposeful external direction of energy is needed.

-- Jheald 07:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC).

It might depend on the kind of order being generated. To say that the second law prevents all forms of autonomous self-organization again seems like yet another straw man. Do they actually say this or is this something you've yet again read into? See for instance this and this on what they have to say regarding snowflakes. It's a good bet that the other authors of the creationist web pages also believe in the existence of snowflakes. However, it is argued (correctly or incorrectly) that this isn't an instance of the kind of self-ordering that evolution requires. Note that if a viewpoint is held by a significant minority (e.g. creationists and their thermodynamics argument) it should be easy to name prominent adherents (according to Wikipedia policy). I have been able to do that with my own citations, but so far you haven't done that with yours regarding these dubious claims. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The authors of the websites may well believe in the spontaneous self-organisation of snowflakes. But the glib sweeping statements they make -- that for complex organised structures to appear and persist, some sort of purposeful external direction of energy is needed -- seem to ignore it.

Moreover, a snowflake is not a particularly interesting example, because it is static and unchanging. More relevant are complex, deeply structured, almost but not quite repeating energy flows. Add self-replication to that, and you haven't got a leg left to stand on. Jheald 18:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

I agree that a snowflake is not a particularly interesting example, but neither are a number of other alleged counterexamples (e.g. circular currents) to the creationist position. Now if you can find an example of something with organized complexity that has arisen spontaneously, congratulations. You've refuted the creationist position. But for the most part I have very seldom seen any anticreationist even attempt that. This is not to say that the creationist position is ultimately correct here, but plenty of people seem to misconstrue the creationist view, and they need to get it right before they criticize. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll

Creationism claims [regarding the second law] should be on this article in some form (links, brief explanation, etc.)

Please sign in the appropriate section below with #~~~~

[edit] Agree

1. Wade A. Tisthammer 22:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC) I don't necessarily agree with the argument, but it is a significant minority view after all (probably why it was included in the first place over a year ago).
2. PAR 16:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)I agree with Wade. The only reason it deserves to be there is because it is a significant minority view or question. Its inclusion does not imply endorsement. The second law is not dogma that needs to be defended from attack by infidels.
3. Yes. However where I think I disagree with Wade is its wording which should follow WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience to the letter. People will come along who have read or heard somewhere that evolution violates 2LOT. The creationists rely on people not understanding the argument but by being impressed by it. Once it's explained. We will have to be careful on the wording but I think we can work something out. It should also be the last section. — Dunc|☺ 12:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Yes, 2LOT has an intimate relationship with pseudoscience as a bogosity detector. The article does already discuss psuedoscience WRT perpetual motion devices, so discussion of other pseudoscience won't make it more "impure". I personally think it's best to explain why application of 2LOT to evolution is silly is better then sweeping the issue under the rug. Toiyabe 17:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Jheald 17:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC). Mild yes. I think the present paragraph "Complex Systems and the Second Law" deals sufficiently comprehensively with the physics of the issue. IMO, flagging that the question of the second law and complexity "sometimes [arises] in the context of debates about evolution and creationism", as per this previous edit, provides a point of current interest, which helps make the article as a whole more interesting. As I understand it, the text on complex systems in the current edit would not be contested by sufficiently well informed 'intelligent design' opponents of evolution. The "pseudoscience" at issue arises in the claim that there is something called specified complexity which is of a different nature to the complexity which is permitted by the Second Law. Detailed treatment of s.c. is best left (IMO) to its own page; but it is probably fair to say that the overwhelming scientific opinion is that the concept is not well founded, nor has any clear difference been presented between it and that complexity which is permitted by the Second Law. — As to the question of whether such an issue should appear here at all, I can understand the frustration at that the seemingly endless edit wars this topic seems to bring with it, and certainly feel it myself. I can understand too why some people think it's appropriate simply to deny these misconceptions the oxygen of publicity; but IMO it's more convincing for them to be flagged briefly and then refuted, if this can be done without unbalancing the article (and here I think it only requires a couple of lines). So on balance I do think this is an appropriate place for the issue to be mentioned in WP; not least because here it is likely to have the attention of people who are relatively clued-up about thermodynamics. And touching the issue does add a point of appropriate current interest and relevance to the article.
6. Useful information must be included. Infinity0 ^talk 18:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree

1. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Ignignot 15:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Jim62sch 01:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
4. CarbonCopy (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Flying Jazz 03:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
7. ScienceApologist 19:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
8. William M. Connolley 20:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC).
9. Guettarda 20:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

As I said earlier, I do find it interesting that increasing hostility to its inclusion happened shortly after the creationist position was accurately represented (before my involvement to correct the distortion of the creationist position, the section survived for over a year), and a link that focused on correcting creationist misrepresentation was removed twice. (For more details, see the "Fun facts" list I made near the top of this talk page.)

My paranoid thoughts of suspicion aside, censorship prevails again (for now anyway). KC apparently decided not to wait for the straw poll to finish and removed the links, saying "Wade, put these on a Creationism article somewhere, not on a physics article - they're not physics." Never mind of course that the links do deal with physics (see for instance the scientific and mathematical symbolism this link uses). I will put the set of links on the creationism Wikipedia article, and hope that censorship does not take place there. (Call me a pessimist, but I suspect those links will be removed there as well; at least the link that focuses on clearing up creationist misrepresentation.) --Wade A. Tisthammer 22:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Good luck, I believe they belong in the Creationism category not in the Physics/Chemistry area. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I have creationism on my watchlist and I'll keep an eye out so people don't remove it. --Ignignot 15:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You have my thanks. Perhaps we can reach consensus after all. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

If anyone were to put it in the physics section I should like to offer them a sight-seeing trip to a black hole. Jim62sch 01:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

What a surprise, the thermodynamics links were removed from the creationism entry just as I predicted. Duncharris did so, saying that it "goes in thermodynamics page." I can see this situation heading towards frustration really fast. I added a link to this discussion section in my explanation of why I put the links back. --Wade A. Tisthammer 06:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Wade, Wade, Wade, don't you think consensus needs to be reached before adding more pseudo-scientific drivel to yet another page. This whole evolution and entropy argument is specious, and yet another example of a few alleged scientists not knowing what they are talking about (probably because they are treating the word "entropy" like most people treat the word "theory).

Anyway, there are a number of reasons why the belief that entropy rules out evolution is spurious: first is that the sun continues to provide energy to the Earth while evolution continues, thus increasing the total entropy. Second, is that the sun generates 30% more heat now than it did in its infancy, and over the next 3.5 billion years will generate 40% more than it does today: all this means that the energy increase has been incremental, increasing exponentially the whole time life has been extant on the planet. This energy (and its increase) was necessary for the formation of life. Third, life itself may be entropic: in reassembling matter into living cells the energy required added to the entropy level on earth. Finally, even if life weren't etropic, the total amount of mass-energy represented by life forms is a tiny percentage of the the available mass-energy available in the Sun-Earth system, thus it could never offset the increase in entropy. Jim62sch 10:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't think a consensus wasn't reached here? Most people agreed that it belonged to a creationist entry, and that's exactly what I did. Heck, even Ignignot (one of my opponents here) said he'd watch my back on this one. And if you think creationist links are pseudoscientific drivel and shouldn't be on the creationism entry, why don't you remove all the creationist links there? Do I sense some special pleading going on here? --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The last person who removed the links (ScienceApologist) from the creationism entry suggested I put it on the Creation-evolution controversy. Anyone want to take any bets on how long that will last? --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Update Surprise, surprise, the link section was removed yet again, ironically by the very same person who recommended I put the section there! The link section has now been on three different entries. So where is it appropriate to put the links regarding this significant minority view? Can we at least reach a consensus on that? I mean seriously, this is getting ridiculous. --Wade A. Tisthammer 06:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The second law is something used to build better homes and chemical plants. I am adding this important real-world content to the second law page. I am also making substantial changes to the exergy page to make these concepts more clear. Flying Jazz 03:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It appears we have 3 basic positions, not two - 1) No C on 2LOT; 2) Yes C on 2LOT, and 3) either way, but if there is C on 2LOT no linkspam and one brief explanation of the links.

I'm in camp 3.

There is validity for both 1 and 2; I can see the point that C is wrong, and would not be presented in a science class, and Ignignot put it; I can also see the validity that people will look for it, and expect to find it here.

Is there any way to place the C info on this page which will not result in an edit war by members of camp 1?

KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Dunc's on the right path. If done properly, i.e., the alledged limitation placed on evolution by entropy is explained as pseudoscience, with reasons clearly showing why it's pseudoscience and why the argument that entropy places any such limitation on evolution is actually a lot of very unimpressive nonsense. Otherwise, it does not belong in the article. One other point: I noticed that there is a different group of people in the 2LOT page than the folks who are represented here. It might be a good idea to invite them in on the discussion as well. Jim62sch 15:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to hash out a paragraph or two at somewhere like Talk:Second law of thermodynamics/creationism/draft, but yes involve physicists rather than slightly confused biologists writing about the law. But I'll go and do some reading, start here. — Dunc|☺ 16:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Dunc, why do you believe my wording does not follow WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience? The wording I proposed was, "Many creationists claim that the second law of thermodynamics poses a major problem for biological evolution. The vast majority of scientists reject this claim." Why is this not WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience? It's almost as if you didn't read what I said here and simply just assumed that my wording somehow violated WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience.

KC, my recommendation for appeasing camp 1 is my wording ("Many creationists claim that the second law of thermodynamics poses a major problem for biological evolution. The vast majority of scientists reject this claim."). It's short, sweet, highly consistent with WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience and has no straw men on either side. And if anyone wants more info on the subject, a list of links on the entry would be sufficient. --Wade A. Tisthammer 17:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This would be my attempt (to go in following the existing material on complexity). I think it's a bit more specific, useful and informative:

Some opponents of evolution have claimed that life exhibits specified complexity which is of a different nature to the autonomous complexity and self-organisation which is permitted by the Second Law. Overwhelming scientific opinion is that the concept is not well founded, and that no clear difference been presented between the so-called "specified complexity" and the self-organisation which is permitted by the Second Law.

-- Jheald 18:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

I would advise against it. The thermodynamics arguments against evolution tend to be brought on by the "lower-tier" creationists (e.g. ICR) rather than the "higher-tier" (e.g. Dembski and his specified complexity). Unless perhaps you can show Dembski using thermodynamics to make the argument you described, it might be best to stick with something akin to my wording. We don't want to make the mistake of making straw men as we did with the previous versions. Indeed, that's how this whole mess started. --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but creating such a distinction between "lower-tier" and "higher-tier" creationists is itself a straw man and original research. No need to even consider that reasoning. You're simply trying to buy ID proponents like Dembski legitimacy at the expense of creation science creationists and young earth creationists. You need to stop trying to push your personal pov ideas about creationism here. FeloniousMonk 18:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You are very quick to provide accusations without evidence aren't you? What evidence do you have that this is a straw man? You have provided none. And contrary to your claims this is not original research (a tu quoque argument if I ever heard one, same with "personal pov ideas" given your behavior on the ID discussion pages). The observation of "lower-tier" and "higher-tier" has been made by Del Ratzsch in the Battle of Beginnings, a prominent person in the controversy (has written several books on the topic, and you can find an essay of his in the major ID book Mere Creation). Next time please do a little research or at least provide some evidence for your accusations. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

So what is it that you believe would be a fair statement of what some opponents of evolution believe that life exhibits, which is of a different nature to the autonomous complexity and self-organisation which is permitted by the Second Law? -- Jheald 18:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

The wording, "Many creationists claim that the second law of thermodynamics poses a major problem for biological evolution. The vast majority of scientists reject this claim." seems to work well enough. As for what life exhibits, "Creationists believe that life has a kind of complexity that natural processes are incapable of producing" also seems to work well enough, but this statement does not seem as appropriate for the thermodynamics article, since it is a more general creationist claim. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, good. So: "Some opponents of evolution have claimed that life exhibits a kind of complexity which is of a different nature to the autonomous complexity and self-organisation which is permitted by the Second Law. Overwhelming scientific opinion is that this is not well-founded and no such distiction can be sustained". Jheald 19:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

Of course, there is one major problem: why is the claim rejected? I've yet to see any physicist make this claim, only a few DI-inspired alleged biologists who couldn't define why a pot of boiling water is an example of entropy. You guys work on your wording, but if you can't define why the claim is pseudoscience of the worst type, it ain't gonna fly. Jim62sch 22:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you have the organizations mixed up. It's generally people like the ICR who puts forth this kind of argument (Gish and especially Morris are some prominent examples), not DI (as far as I know). Jim, is it not true that why the creationist argument is pseudoscience can perhaps be adequately shown in the links? Besides, a simple denial that the "overwhelming scientific opinion" on the claim that life has a kind of complexity that cannot be produced naturally is "not well founded" seems to be sufficient given that we have not gone into great detail exactly what the creationist position is (and we'd have to do that before adequately explaining why it is wrong). --Wade A. Tisthammer 05:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

True, the links could explain why the claim is nonsense. Would there also be a link explaining the claim itself? Sorry if I seem a bit touchy regarding this claim, but there's only so much stupidity I can deal with. The folks advancing this claim are taking advantage of the average person's innumeracy and lack of scientific knowledge in order to completely misrepresent fact by spouting important-sounding pseudoscientific drivel. Oh, DI (CSC) has several articles on entropy on its website, so yes, they are helping to spread the lie. See [5], [6] and [7]. My primary concern is that putting this claim on a page dedicated to a scientific law is merely another wedge-strategy that would give the claim some publicity. I'd really prefer that it went on a creationism page. Jim62sch 10:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

But Jim, what does the DI actually say about this issue? Do they present the kind of argument that can be refuted with the "Earth is an open system" reply or do they present something substantially different? Note for instance the first link you gave says this:

"if an increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is closed, it is still extremely improbable when the system is open, unless something is entering which makes it not extremely improbable"

And the link argues that biological evolution does not have that "something," claiming that the evolutionist does not have a suitable answer to the "the question of probability" and in this way the second law poses a problem to evolution. Even if they are wrong, we should be careful about using straw men, which plagued previous wordings on the entry.

Jheald, as far as accuracy goes the wording is excellent. My one concern is that it's a bit, well, "heavy" and not as readable as mine. Still, it is accurate and makes no straw men so I could still live with it. --Wade A. Tisthammer 05:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks like we are very close to consensus here, which is great! I would like to bring up the subject of how many external links. IMHO if we can find one which clearly presents the C argument and the Sc. refutation, that would be ideal. If not, one for each side would work. More than that would be undue weight in the links department, if you follow. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I have followed the mediator's suggestion, and created a separate article Creationism and the Second Law of Thermodynamics where people can review the history, sociology and any other aspect they like to about this persistent belief.

I propose that it is now best to have all external links in that article, and no external links in this article, and indeed no further mention in this article beyond the 3-line slug of text I have added, which appears to be acceptable to Wade. If this is acceptable, can we put the matter to bed now? -- Jheald 15:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

Works for me. It accomplishes the apparent need to acknowledge the claim, is brief and gives both sides of the argument. There might be two more links from talkorigins.org that could be added. Overall, really well done! Jim62sch 15:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Nah, the two links I was considering aren't totally appropriate. Jim62sch 15:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Jheald, I also agree with your decision in following the mediator's request. Alas, this matter has not been put to bed yet. ScienceApologist apparently wants the stub deleted. Perhaps if we can show him that we have consensus here regarding this compromise, then we can put it to rest. --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who needs mediation, anyway

Mediator response The edits on Creationism should be put in other places. Mainly this is on physics topics and there are a lot of other possibilities to create new articles on Creationism and relationship with/or/and second law of thermodynamics. I am waiting your response.

I suggest you create new articles for Creationism and relationship with/or/and second law of thermodynamics and let the article of second law of thermodynamics free of ambiguous links. --Bonaparte talk 13:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Jim62sch 01:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Jim, I respect you completely but that is awfully close to trolling. I understand your frustration with Bonaparte - I struck out my comment and withdrew from participation in the "mediation" myself - please consider whether your post is doing anything to help advance WP as an encyclopedia, to improve Bonaparte's mediation skills, or to achieve a solution to the issue at hand. Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you're correct, although I did not intend it as anything remotely similar to trolling; it was more a case of sarcasm in noting that Wade had requested mediation, did not like the answer, and went forward with his original plan. But, if it gives the impression of trolling, then it can and should be withdrawn. Jim62sch 13:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Wade, I just realized that you didn't start the RfM. Jim62sch 14:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I am thankful you at least retracted the claim and apologized "publicly" as it were. Too many times in fervent debates like these people are trigger-happy in making accusations without evidence (see for instance a remark made by FeloniousMonk in this talk page).

Apology accepted BTW. --Wade A. Tisthammer 19:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This case is still listed as needing a new mediator. Is this true? --Fasten 11:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 23:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)