Talk:James Maxwell

Evolution comments by a physist?

What does the beliefs of a person who studied physics and atomic structure have to do with biology? These are about as distinct disciplines as computer science and law... and I know that my background in CS doesn't give me any insight into the goings on of the courts. Maybe if he was a biologist it would be noteworthy, but what authority does he have to state opinion that should be respected on biology? --Mtur 19:32, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, if that's your approach, then what authority did Darwin have to comment on evolution either???

Comments by anthropologists are self-serving. We also want to know what bright people have to say from their independent vantage points.

More generally, and this hardly seems necessary to repeat, don't delete facts from this website for liberal reasons not in our rules. Thanks.--Aschlafly 19:36, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly, your position is absurd. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. The fact that some editors here are obsessed with the theory of evolution seems to have affected their ability to see clearly. Maxwell was a physicist. His expertise was in physics. Should the article on the Wright Brothers include their views on evolution? Maybe every biographical page should contain that person's views on evolution (except for anthropologists!). That is what follows from your logic. Frankly, I suspect that if Maxwell were alive today he would feel a little sheepish about his views on evolution (which, in fairness to him, were expressed well over 100 years ago). --Horace 19:51, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

P.S. I suspect your comment above questioning Darwin's authority to comment on evolution might garner this site a couple of links from other sites (but not the good kind). --Horace 19:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

P.P.S. You refer to deleting information for "liberal reasons". I stated my reasons clearly when I made the deletion. Exactly what is it that makes those reasons liberal? --Horace 20:00, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

You have deleted this factual information twice now. This should justify blocking your account. But I won't do that, and will give you the benefit of the doubt.

James Maxwell was an eminent English scientist, and far smarter than Charles Darwin. Let the reader know Maxwell's views on evolution, and let the reader decide. Do not engage in liberal censorship of conservative facts here. This is not Wikipedia. Thank you.--Aschlafly 11:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I have moved your comments to where they belong chronologically. You will see that this highlights the fact that you ignored my question about why my edit was "liberal". Indeed you make the same unfounded assertion again!

Your assertion that James Maxwell was "far smarter than Charles Darwin" sounds shrill and somewhat desperate. Whether he was smarter or not is irrelevant. He was a physicist and biology was not his area of expertise. Information must not only be factual, it must be relevant. If it is not relevant it amounts to no more than gossip. As you are aware the Conservapedia rules prohibit gossip. I will remove it unless you can provide a LOGICAL reason why it should remain.

Finally, I do not appreciate you threatening me. I only removed the information a second time after receiving no response to my post above. I could equally say that you have reverted two of my edits. Are you suggesting there something special about your edits? Are we lowly editors forbidden to touch anything that you do? I didn't see that in the rules. Could you please advise at your earliest convenience. If it is a rule I don't want to transgress it. --Horace 20:45, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

It's an interesting fact, so no reason to remove it.Jaques 20:51, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

• Yes, well, Horace, perfect logic. If one does not receive a response, within the specified time period set by you, one is allowed to proceed! I would love that for driving, since I regularly speed. Maybe if I asked for an exemption, and didn't receive an answer in, say, 24 hours, I should be allowed to without penalty! --~ Sysop-TerryK ^MyTalk 21:11, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

I did not specify a time period but as we appeared to be discussing the matter and he did not respond I made the assumption that I had convinced him of his error. Do you have anything to say on the substantive issue? --Horace 21:18, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

• Lots. But Horace, only you and a few others see the need to try and convince a man what he believes in is false. That is presumptuous and rude beyond belief. It is also illogical. You might as well be spitting into the wind. And, you know it. So, it all goes back to motive. What is yours? We will all wait for the Students to decide, as this place belongs to the Students and Andy. Any decisions they make are the "right" ones, because this place is theirs, not ours. If we dislike their decisions, each of us has to decide, based upon individual conscience, if we can support and participate based upon those decisions, whatever they might be. In the meantime, howling at the wind, beating on the door, is only distracting and disruptive, I submit. --~ Sysop-TerryK ^MyTalk 21:31, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

TK, could you please elaborate on the importance of this passage in the article and how a physicist's views on biology are relevant? If they are relevant, should that be part of every biography that appears on this site? --Mtur 21:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

• No. --~ Sysop-TerryK ^MyTalk 21:36, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

So, is there any reason why it is there? --Mtur 21:36, 6 April 2007 (EDT)