Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:41, 10 November 2005

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. Misplaced Pages 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)

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. Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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 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 (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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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 " 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)

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.