Talk:Second law of thermodynamics/creationism

message: 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)
=== 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Creationism and the second law: the wording of the encyclopedic entry

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New Wording: Re-inserting the issue 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Boltzmann's view 

message: # Wade A. Tisthammer 22:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Agree

message: #KillerChihuahua?!? 22:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disagree

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: AfD