Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creationism and the Second Law of Thermodynamics


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page &#x260E;  ) 07:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Creationism and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
VOTE Tally: Delete: 12 Keep: 5

This is an inappropriate Fork of creationism, entropy, and a number of other articles. In particular, this subject is already appropriately covered on the creation-evolution controversy page. The User:Tisthammerw is currently trying to get this very same linklist included on the creation-evolution controversy page after having failed getting included on the Second Law of Thermodynamics page. For reasons discussed on Talk:Second law of thermodynamics, Talk:Second law of thermodynamics/creationism, and Talk:Creation-evolution controversy, it isn't clear that this should be done. After all Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. Also note that one of the links is to his own personal webpage, in possible violation of WP:VANITY and WP:NOR. --ScienceApologist 23:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete There is not enough research material on this page to make it worth merging. -- (aeropagitica) [[Image:Flag_of_England.svg|25px|UK]] 23:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Do not delete, first, let it be said that contrary to ScienceApologist's accusations I did not create this fork. 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 especially the end of this section.  The link BTW ScienceApologist is referring to is owned by me but it is not a personal web page (i.e. it is not about me, it is about science, philosphy etc. and contains no actual vanity content).  It is also not original research, as it consists of more than a dozen verifiable citations.  I have had a dispute with ScienceApologist before, and he is now trying to remove web pages of mine both here and from the ontological argument section.  I didn't actually put the link there (some other user did, apparently finding the page useful) but ScienceApologist wants it removed nonetheless.  You can find out about that dispute here.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I created this page, not tisthammerw, as a solution to a very extended discussion on Talk:Second_law_of_thermodynamics and Talk:Second_law_of_thermodynamics/creationism, following the direct suggestion of the appointed WP mediator to that discussion. The joint feeling in that discussion was that a detailed treatment of this pseudoscience topic was not appropriate for a frontline physics article.  Therefore this page was created to allow a detailed examination of the history, sociology and whatever else for this topic here, rather than in Second Law of Thermodynamics.  The article is clearly flagged as a stub, because to start it I merely cut and pasted the material that had previously been on the Second Law of Thermodynamics page -- which putting here allowed us to remove from there.  A detailed treatment of this topic is by consensus not appropriate for Second Law of Thermodynamics, not appropriate for entropy, so it is ++useful for those articles to have this article that they can hand the discussion off to (including links, references, etc).  Of course, at the moment the article is just a stub; but I very much doubt it will stay so short for very long(!).  Like any other article on WP, the contents of this article are up for editing and change -- I'm not going to make any defence for or against tisthammerw's link.  But the bottom line is this: having this separate article here in WP's namespace is useful, and has helped resolve a lengthy discussion elsewhere, so please don't delete it. -- Jheald 23:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC).
 * I'm sorry that you have decided to effectively create a POV fork as a resolution to a dispute, but that's not in accordance with Wikipedia policy. --ScienceApologist 03:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a POV fork. It's a rational factoring of the content into two NPOV articles, reflecting the consensus outcome of an extensive and prolonged discussion. If there's something in this new article that you don't think reflects NPOV then edit it, but it seems a pretty solid and balanced NPOV beginning to me. -- Jheald 03:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC).
 * For WP policy, see WP:Content forking - Article spinouts. That is what this is. -- Jheald 16:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC).
 * It may not be a POV fork of the 2nd Law article, but it is definitely a POV fork of the creation-evolution controversy article which already deals with second-law objections to evolution. It would have been better if editors at 2nd Law had consulted editors at creationism or creation-evolution controversy before making a wholly separate article. As it currently stands, there are a lot of problems with this article and it doesn't lend itself to a redirect merger (it's not just a matter of editting). This is a generally poor way to handle a content fork especially now that Wikipedia has articles about so many subjects. --ScienceApologist 04:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what basis you have to call it POV. The section on the creation-evolution controversy says almost nothing about the topic, though that it even exists in the entry bears some mention.  You said there are lot of problems with this article.  Really?  Can you point out even one?  --Wade A. Tisthammer 04:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I mention them in the opening rationale. --ScienceApologist 06:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Where? Could you perhaps (for instance) isolate and/or rephrase your justification for calling it POV?
 * The POV is creationist and it isn't clear that a fork of 2LOT based on creationism is appropriate. --ScienceApologist 06:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. The second paragraph doesn't say anything about how the arguments against evolution are flawed; it has a tone of "the creationists are wrong, so there." This isn't really an improvement on what exists in other articles. Gazpacho 07:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So fix it. You might like to look at Second_law_of_thermodynamics.  From the standpoint of the 2nd Law article, the most useful thing is to have the links etc discussing just what the anti-evolutionists tend to claim here rather than there. -- Jheald 09:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC).


 * Delete as an unneeded fork. Stifle 14:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; small essay; external link list. &mdash; RJH 15:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless this becomes an actual article. (No-one say "give it time" please - you don't have to post something to Wikipedia the moment it enters your head). Currently a list of external links with introduction, violating WP:NOT. --Malthusian (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: A bit more detail is necessary, I think, given that this is an ongoing issue. Either this subject is signficant but not expandable beyond this stub, in which case it should be either in creationism or second law of thermodynamics; or this subject is significant and more can be written, in which case I'll be happy to keep when I see it; or this is a view held by an insignificant minority, in which case it doesn't belong anywhere here. (Addendum: the creation-evolution controversy page says that this theory is too stupid even for creationist organisations to recommend using it, which means that it seems unlikely to be worth covering in any more depth than that article does.)
 * Currently the article does not explain why creationists believe the 2nd Law proves God's existence or whatever, but does find time to say that they're wrong. Even if it isn't a fork and its creation was a good idea I can't support keeping that. --Malthusian (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, as per Jheald's argument. Those of you who have not gone through Talk:Second law of thermodynamics/creationism, please do so before voting.  Toiyabe 16:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Clear POV fork from a problem contributor . FeloniousMonk 18:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you calling me a problem contributor ??? -- Jheald 19:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC).
 * My apologies, I thought tisthammerw was the original author. FeloniousMonk 19:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, Wade is the primary author since the linkfarm is his creation and that is the majority of the article. --ScienceApologist 13:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you track back through the history of Second Law of Thermodynamics, I think you will find that that set of links evolved through the normal process of Wikipedia editing, with contributions from several sides; to produce what I believe is a reasonably balanced sampler of discussion on the topic. Which is why I am left somewhat confused by the claim that the current article stub up for deletion is said to be POV.  But perhaps you can enlighten me? -- Jheald 14:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC).
 * Check out the discussion at creation-evolution controversy where the links were removed except for one for reasonable rationale. --ScienceApologist 20:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that rationale mostly only applies to that page though, not to this one. -- Jheald 11:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC).
 * Except, we are arguing that supposed content associated with this subject blongs on that page. --ScienceApologist 06:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In the discussion regarding creationism and the second law of thermodynamics, one suggested comprimise was to move the links to creationism. ScienceApologist removed them however, and suggested they be moved to creation-evolution controversy where he deleted all the links I moved there save for one anticreationist link.  --Wade A. Tisthammer 05:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a very one-sided interpretation of what occurred. You can read about the rationale for excluding the linkfarm on the Talk:Creation-evolution controversy page.


 * Comment: Malthusian, the primary problem is that creationists make five separate arguments concerning 2LOT, none of which are scientifically supportable. As for delete vs keep, if this article is to stay it needs work, but not as if it were a full-blown article.  On the other hand, I'm not sure that it should be kept at all, per the points raised by SA and others.


 * Given creationists never-ending litany of objections to evolution that cover such fields as physics, chemistry, cosmology, biology, mathematics, philosophy, theology, geology, paleontology, archaeology, etc., if we allow this article to stay, we'll need articles on such diverse topics as "Dendrochronology is suspect because two or more rings can grow per year", Light moths increased before trees got lighter", "Dinosaurs may still be alive in the Congo", "There is not enough helium in the atmosphere for an old earth", etc. But, having said all of that, I'm not going to vote because I had some involvement in the genesis of this page.  Also, I understand both sides of this issue, and neither is truly compelling at the moment. Jim62sch 18:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * My point has always been that creationism objections to scientific viewpoints do not belong in every single article about a topic that they object about. I have to agree that making a new article is not reasonable for each topic's controversy, and that it should be in creationism, however I'm beginning to think that the article on creationism is hopelessly bogged down with comparisons between it and science.  Maybe there should just be one big article similar to religion and science or something like that?  I suppose I am delete but for relocation.  This stuff needs a home.  I think creationism would be better if it talked about creationism instead of objections to scientific evidence and theories, and that the articles on scientific evidence and theories would be better if they were similarly limited in scope.  Call me a reductionist, I guess.  There are plenty of things in the Bible that do not have to do with creationism and yet violate the scientifically accepted laws of physics.  --Ignignot 21:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete This content and these links belong in the Creation-evolution_controversy article in my opinion. Flying Jazz 22:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per Flying Jazz. This article violates both WP:NOT and WP:NPOV policies. &mdash;Pradeep Arya 14:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and POV fork. And it's very, very small, there is no problem at all containing this much text in one of the several existing articles on creationism.  The fact that it's apparently viewed as a placeholder for even more such nonsense is also a good reason to get rid of it. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] AfD? 18:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep First, being a stub is not sufficient reason for deletion. The article is only a few days old - wait a month and see if it grows up, and if not delete it then. Second, creationist misunderstandings about thermodynamics should be addressed somewhere in Wikipedia; but certainly not at Second law of thermodynamics. There is no adequate comment elsewhere. Third, deletion of this article will result in continuation of creationist interference with Second law of thermodynamics. Placing the debate on a separate article will allow that article to be improved without unnecessary interruption. Banno 20:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * WRT points two and three -- send your creationists who want to interfere over to the creation-evolution controversy article. That's where the subject belongs. --ScienceApologist 20:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So you would make creation-evolution controversy a sort of ghetto for creationists? Have you noticed how crowded that article is? Banno 22:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The article already includes information about the 2LOT arguments made by creationists. If there is more encyclopedic content to add, let it grow organically from that article and then create a daughter article. I don't think a case has been made that this article deserves to exist. --ScienceApologist 06:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete This appears to be a POV fork and possibly WP:NOR. Any real new content could be added into Creation-evolution_controversy . Salsb 21:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be a POV fork if only the creationist view were discussed, but there is nothing in the nature of the page that necessitates that. At present, it says just about nothing, so how can you claim it to be original research? Delete the page before it is written and you will never know. Give it a chance. Banno 22:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The page title itself is begging for original research to creep in as it is establishing a pseudoscientific look at a scientific subject. It would be like having a page on New Age spirituality and quantum mechanics -- a completely inappropriate platform for establishing an encyclopedia article. --ScienceApologist 06:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article could be expanded to include arguments against evolution, and geological time, dating back all the way to Kelvin.  Kelvin argued (before the discovery of radioactivity) that the earth was too warm to be as old as geologists claimed and Darwin's theory required; when he presented his argument for a max age of 20,000,000 years (which was solid, if you don't take into account the heating due to radioactivity) in a popular form (MacMillan's Magazine, volume 5, 1862,pp. 288-293), it was in the context of the recent publication Origin.  And in 1872, he presented a short essay on the origin of life, based similarly on thermodynamic arguments; after an invocation of the "solid and irrefragable argument" of Paley's Natural Theology, he concluded,: "...overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie all around us; and if ever perplexities, whether metaphysical or scientific, turn us away from them from a time, they come back upon us with irresistable force, showing to us through Nature the influence of free will, and teaching us that all living things depend on one ever-acting Creator and Ruler." (Report of the Forty-First Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Edinburgh, August 1871, pp lxxxiv-cv)--ragesoss 04:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Whilst Kelvin's calculations was important to establishing the ancient age of the earth, (given the radioactivity issue which when discovered pushed it back further), that is not how modern YEC creationists ("creation scientists") use the term. The more modern "sophisticated" IDists don't use 2LOT because it is so dumb. Kelvin recognised the importance of evidence over scripture and recognised evolution but with "divine guidance" .  But the thermodynamics and the age of the earth is a different to creationism and the second law of thermodynamics, and is therefore OT. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 11:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And yet, strictly speaking, Kelvin did make the connection between his work based on the 2LOT and creationism, broadly defined. I'm not saying it's the same thing as modern YEC invocations of it, but it fits the title and potential content of the article; there is enough history of 2LOT-based arguments related to creationism, from both a geological and biological perspective, that the article could contain significant content in the future.  The article is potentially broader than just "YEC creationism and the 2LOT applied to biology".  And even for just recent arguments, the article has a lot more potential content, including arguments that the 2LOT didn't operate until the Fall of Man, and a more extensive treatment of the detailed arguments and criticism. As Banno argues, we can't just relegate everything to do with creationism to the controversy article.  2LOT arguments are extensive enough (and different enough from other aspects of creation-evolution) to merit the existence of this article.  The creation-evolution article is largely not about the details of the intellectual arguments in the debate, but about the nature of and participants in it. --ragesoss 05:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * We can relegate everything to the controversy article. In fact, we already do. The subject is covered there in as much detail as it deserves from an encyclopedic standpoint. --ScienceApologist 06:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * More than that, Kelvin's arguments had to do with hydrostatic equilibrium, the equivalence of heat and energy, and gravitational collapse and were not about the 2LOT per se. --ScienceApologist 06:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete NOR vio POV fork. Karm  a  fist  06:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Karmafist. Guettarda 06:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.