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)

It is gossip-esque. It is not relevant to a physicist. It is unsourced. If it was and interesting point and thus relevant to a biography in general, it should be attached to every biography. --Mtur 22:00, 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)

Reply to the above

Conservapedia does not censor non-gossipy facts of interest to users. Go to Wikipedia for that kind of censorship. Maxwell's views on evolution are not gossip. We won't be seeing that in the National Enquirer.

The liberal desire to censor this fact cannot prevail here. Maxwell was a brilliant scientist and a fellow Englishman of Darwin. Evolutionists cite the views of scientists in support of evolution (e.g., National Academy of Science), and it is certainly fair game to mention the views of scientists against evolution. And, yes, Maxwell was far smarter than Darwin. It's not "desperate" to state the obvious on a talk page. Just look at how they did in school, and where they ended up after school.

There are fundamental differences between Conservapedia and Wikipedia. Including this fact about Maxwell's views illustrates that difference. We let the reader decide, and we do not censor this information here. Wikipedia will welcome those who prefer an environment that censors this information.--Aschlafly 22:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

WHY IS IT A "LIBERAL DESIRE TO CENSOR"? I'm sorry to shout but I have asked several times and you have just ignored the question. I think I put my position pretty clearly and it has nothing to do with political ideology.

Regretably you, however, appear to have the attitude that this factlette about Maxwell is of some significance because it promotes your worldview. That is not a legitimate reason for its inclusion. I am sure I have read somewhere here that you are some sort of lawyer. I would have thought that issues of relevance would be second nature to you.

If you tell me that it is Conservapedia's policy to include reference to evolution in every biographical entry then (whilst I will regard it as bizarre) I will comply. But I will not think it a good policy because it is not scholarly.

But, if that is not the policy then, in an entry of this length on one of the world's greatest physicists I regard the reference to his views on evolution as just totally out of place. I also regard your suggestion that I am seeking to sensor your views as highly ironic having regard to the well known goings-on around here (including, but not limited to, your threat to me above).

I am not interested in engaging in an edit war. The problem is that I cannot help but see this matter as being driven by your desire to promote your own worldview overriding your desire for a scholarly article. I would be delighted if you could point out the error in my assessment of the situation. I have a genuine wish to see the best quality entries on this site. I am of the view that the inclusion of Maxwell's views on evolution merely confirm in the minds of a substantial number of readers that scholarship takes a back seat to ideology here. And I regret to say, I think that at the moment they are probably right. --Horace 03:11, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

In any case it appears that the assertion that Maxwell rejected Darwin's evolution is incorrect. See here.

Accordingly, I have removed the reference. I would be happy to discuss the matter further if you would like to do so but the article referred to above seems pretty clear and comprehensive. --Horace 17:09, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

You have again reverted my edit without any explanation whatsoever.

Did you read the article referred to above at all?

Did you consider explaining your action?

Have you just decided that you don't care about facts at all?

I really am genuinely mystified. How do you explain your behaviour to yourself? --Horace 22:56, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Horace, Maxwell rejected evolution. I've added the quote. I don't think anyone seriously disputes this. Good Easter to you!--Aschlafly 15:00, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

The quote isn't about animal evolution (and thus Darwin's theory) at all; he's making an argument that molecules can't evolve, a completely separate matter. ==Jtl 17:43, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

That's a new one ... that the "theory of evolution" doesn't refer to Darwin's theory? Even when spoken by Maxwell in 1873, when everyone was talking about Darwin? People may disagree with Maxwell's view, but there's no doubting that he rejected the theory of evolution. And please don't say this is "quote mining". See talk.origins terminology.

A good Easter to you, Jtl.--Aschlafly 21:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

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)

On Maxwell and Evolution

From http://www.charlespetzold.com/etc/MaxwellMoleculesAndEvolution.html

No theory of evolution can be formed to account for the similarity of molecules, for evolution necessarily implies continuous change, and the molecule is incapable of growth or decay, of generation or destruction.

None of the processes of Nature, since the time when Nature began, have produced the slightest difference in the properties of any molecule. We are therefore unable to ascribe either the existence of the molecules or the identity of their properties to any of the causes which we call natural.

The only writing that I can find by James Maxwell on evolution is this poem[1]

At quite uncertain times and places,

The atoms left their heavenly path,

And by fortuitous embraces,

Engendered all that being hath.

And though they seem to cling together,

And form "associations" here,

Yet, soon or late, they burst their tether,

And through the depths of space career.

So we who sat, oppressed with science,

As British asses, wise and grave,

Are now transformed to wild Red Lions,

As round our prey we ramp and rave.

Thus, by a swift metamorphosis,

Wisdom turns wit, and science joke,

Nonsense is incense to our noses,

For when Red Lions speak, they smoke.

Hail, Nonsense! dry nurse of Red Lions,

From thee the wise their wisdom learn,

From thee they cull those truths of science,

Which into thee again they turn.

What combinations of ideas,

Nonsense alone can wisely form!

What sage has half the power that she has,

To take the towers of Truth by storm?

Yield, then, ye rules of rigid reason!

Dissolve, thou too, too solid sense!

Melt into nonsense for a season,

Then in some nobler form condense.

Soon, all too soon, the chilly morning,

This flow of soul will crystallize,

Then those who Nonsense now are scorning,

May learn, too late, where wisdom lies.

As such, I am changing the sentence on the article page from

Maxwell rejected the theory of evolution of fellow Englishman Charles Darwin.

to read

Maxwell did not believe that the theory of evolution had any application to molecules and atoms.

If anyone wishes to change it to something else, I strongly suggest that they have a citation of something written by Maxwell that applies to the particular type of evolution in question (if it is about biology, then about biology - Darwin didn't make any claim that molecules had any application to his work in the Origin of Species). --Mtur 13:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

---

It took me less than 15 minutes to find this:

In the heavens we discover by their light, and by their light alone, stars so distant from each other that no material thing can ever have passed from one to another; [359] and yet this light, which is to us the sole evidence of the existence of these distant worlds, tells us also that each of them is built up of molecules of the same kinds as those which we find on earth. A molecule of hydrogen, for example, whether in Sirius or in Arcturus, executes its vibrations in precisely the same time. Each molecule therefore throughout the universe bears impressed upon it the stamp of a metric system as distinctly as does the metre of the Archives at Paris, or the double royal cubit of the temple of Karnac. No theory of evolution can be formed to account for the similarity of molecules, for evolution necessarily implies continuous change, and the molecule is incapable of growth or decay, of generation or destruction. None of the processes of Nature, since the time when Nature began, have produced the slightest difference in the properties of any molecule. We are therefore unable to ascribe either the existence of the molecules or the identity of their properties to any of the causes which we call natural. On the other hand, the exact equality of each molecule to all others [2]

So does this mean he favored the Theory of evolution, opposed it, or what? --Ed Poor 13:26, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

It means that he had no opinion on biological theory of evolution. He just said it had no application to molecules. There is no 'higher' or 'lower' form of a molecule. While they may combine and break apart, this is not evolution any more than the changing state of a three ball billiards game is evolution. --Mtur 13:29, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I read the quote above as (1) being an opinion on the biological theory of evolution and (2) a repudiation of that theory. --Ed Poor 13:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

It still reads to me as making no explicit claim, one way or another, as to biological evolution. If anything, it's implicitely contrasting molecules, which don't have descent-with-modification and thus can't have a theory of evolution, with things which do have "continuous change", "growth and decay" and "generation or destruction", and thus might have theories of evolution. Without anything more explicit, I'd be disinclined to come to any conclusion firm enough to include in the article, but it sure sounds to me like he's at least open to the possibility of biological evolution. --Jtl 13:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

More from Maxwell

On the other hand, the exact equality of each molecule to all others of the same kind gives it, as Sir John Herschel has well said, the essential character of a manufactured article, and precludes the idea of its being eternal and self-existent. Thus we have been led, along a strictly scientific path, very near to the point at which Science must stop,—not that Science is debarred from studying the internal mechanism of a molecule which she cannot take to pieces, any more than from investigating an organism which she cannot put together. But in tracing back the history of matter, Science is arrested when she assures herself, on the one hand, that the molecule has been made, and, on the other, that it has not been made by any of the processes we call natural. Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing. We have reached the utmost limits of our thinking faculties when we have admitted that because matter cannot be eternal and self-existent it must have been created. (Page 176)