183
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 178:
Line 178: + + + + + + Line 186:
Line 192: + +
no edit summary
--~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 16:40, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
--~ [[User:TK|TK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 16:40, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:: <blockquote> When used without qualification in the late 20th and early 21st century, the "theory of evolution" refers to Darwin's theory (as modified), yes. Possibly so in 1873 as well; I don't know and don't make any claim to. What's important is that it's clear that that in this quote, it does not. "No theory of evolution can be formed to account for the similarity of molecules"; simply by saying "no theory of evolution", Maxwell is suggesting there can be multiple different theories of evolution accounting for different things; otherwise he would have said "the theory of evolution". But more importantly, he continues to qualify what kind of theory he's talking about here: one which might attempt to "account for the similarity of molecules". If he's referring to Darwin's theory, then he's saying the blindingly obvious: Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't account for the similarity of molecules; that's correct, but not interesting. Darwin's theory doesn't attempt to account for that similarity.
I don't think the question of whether this is quote mining is a necessary one to deal with here. Taken solely on its own terms, this quote is clearly not speaking about Darwin's theory of biological evolution.
A good Easter to you, as well. --Jtl 22:31, 8 April 2007 (EDT)</blockquote>
:: Ooh, this is fun. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 18:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Molecules have nothing to do with the Origin of Species. That is what Darwin put forward. Biological evolution - the power of nature to select traits that allows the species to flourish. Maxwell said that since all molecules are equal and there is no 'better' molecule, evolution has no place in physics. It is not a refutation of biological evolution. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:01, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Molecules have nothing to do with the Origin of Species. That is what Darwin put forward. Biological evolution - the power of nature to select traits that allows the species to flourish. Maxwell said that since all molecules are equal and there is no 'better' molecule, evolution has no place in physics. It is not a refutation of biological evolution. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:01, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:: In the mean time, can you please cite any writing by Maxwell that suggested that believed in creation as specified in the Bible. Until then, the bit about being a Creationist is unsourced and suspect. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:: In the mean time, can you please cite any writing by Maxwell that suggested that believed in creation as specified in the Bible. Until then, the bit about being a Creationist is unsourced and suspect. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
: This is Conservapedia, and we don't twist and contort and censor quotes to satisfy a liberal desire. Maxwell's quote and opposition to the theory of evolution cannot seriously be refuted. We'll let the reader the decide, and we're not going to censor this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
: This is Conservapedia, and we don't twist and contort and censor quotes to satisfy a liberal desire. Maxwell's quote and opposition to the theory of evolution cannot seriously be refuted. We'll let the reader the decide, and we're not going to censor this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:: I'm fine with leaving the quote on the page, without the claim that he was talking about biological evolution. If he's going to be classified as a 'creationist', though, we need either a definition of creationist other than 'someone who believes in the Biblical creation story' or a much different quote. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 18:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)