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)