Article in Science / Biology & Nature / Biological Processes
Denying the significance of original "New Data" facts in the history of discovery of natural selection, Darwin scholars are publishing obscene abuse. Others use fact denial propaganda tactics to deny anything new has been discovered, that my findings are a "conspiracy theory" and are "very silly"
 
 
 

THIS PROFESSIONALLY REVIEWED BEST THINKING ARTICLE IS WRITTEN AND PUBLISHED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

image

Public Domain

What Does History Teach Us Happens When Societies Allow Scientists and Historians To Deny Facts?


"Darwin is set on a pedestal as though he were Einstein or Copernicus, and anyone doubting adherence to this conventional view risks ostracism. In science, as much as in religion, we can find extreme views that fly in the face of realities."

Darwin: The Microscopist Who Didn't Discover Evolution. By Brian J. Ford. The Microscope. 59:3, 2011. pp 129-137. Click to read.

POSTSCRIPT 25 JUNE 2016

Since this article was published Dr Jason Rosenhouse published an ignorant diatribe - uninformed by the newly discovered facts - referring to me, by name, as a "big-time crackpot". You can read about his abusive pseudo scholarship Here.

POSTSCRIPT 29 JUNE 2016

My published right of reply to Malec's review of my book 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret' can be read here

POSTSCRIPT 6TH AUGUST 2016

Someone claiming to be George Beccaloni of the Natural History Museum of London - who is curator of the Wallace Collection - has (arguably) an intellectual and ethical melt down when faced with the new facts as well as old facts that disconfirm his various claims. Moreover, he tries to argue with abuse, utter ignorance, and palpably misleading falsehoods: Here. And more on the comments section to this subsequent blog post on Beccaloni's behaviour on published social media - Here

Forword by the author to explain why "the gloves are off" in the war of veracity versus claptrap

As a confirmed atheist for the past forty years, I think that the scientific evidence supports macroevolution by natural selection as a far more rational and evidence based explanation for the origin and extinction of species than intelligent design. Consequently, I take as a propaganda slur any allegations that imply I am in any way supporting the intelligent design movement or publishing in pseudo-scientific journals that do the same. I would not do such a thing and I never have. This article concerns my peer reviewed publication in the Polish science journal "Aspects of Origin". The journal does not promote arguments for intelligent design over natural selection, but in the open scholarly interests of sharing - in order to better understand - the arguments and "evidence" that others think does support intelligent design, it allows others to present their independently and anonymously peer reviewed arguments on that topic for consideration by the international science community. I think that doing this is as important an approach in the field of biology as it is, for example, in promoting scientifically proven benefits in the field of vaccination immunity. Namely, we need to understand better the best considered and articulated arguments of those who oppose what we think is rational science if we wish to engage with them to persuade them that one scientific or historical theory or hypothesis is rationally, and so scientifically / scholarly, superior to another.

image

(c) Dr Mike Sutton 2016. All national and international rights strictly reserved.Used only with express written permission

Mike Sutton with Elaine and Eleena Sutton

I am a hate crime scholar, aware of the great danger that history teaches us of obscenely abusing those we disagree with, and of the dangers of fact denial behaviour in universities.

Denial of the existence of proven newly discovered historical facts, by way of misinforming the press about the peer reviewed published research findings of scholars, by way of completely fallacious 'fact denial' statements, is a tactic adopted by pseudo scholars, cults, extremists, nazis and totalitarian regimes of all kinds.

We have a duty to confront those in positions of influence who use their positions to deny facts to mislead the press and the public. All the more so if those making fallacious public statement to deny facts are respected professional historians and scientists.

As the husband of a black Jamaican-heritage woman and father of our a mixed heritage child (See the family blog of Elaine Sutton), I am particularly concerned that some university academics, including influential members of the so called "Darwin Industry", are behaving like cyber nazi thugs and extremists by abusing me personally by way of university email accounts, sending weirdly ranting and fallacious poison pen emails to me, my friends, associates and members of the press, and abusing facilities such as Twitter on social media to publish misogynistic and other obscene and foul abuse as part of their blatantly desperate pseudo scholarly fact denial programme.

I am further greatly concerned that others are, arguably, propagandising in order to persuade the scientific community and the wider public via journalists of the national and regional press with completely unevidenced claims that independently verifiable and 100 per cent proven facts that I originally discovered to exist in long neglected printed matter in historic science publications, do not exist there, or that their new discovery is nothing new, or that they are silly, or that they are in some way intrinsically part of some undefined conspiracy theory, or else being used in some undefined way to construct one.

Let me explain why such blatant disregard for the facts, by way of propagandising fact denial behaviour by "experts" of all kinds, so bothers me:

I have given several papers at criminology conferences in the USA, Brazil, Poland, Germany and Italy and published on the topic of how the elected and non-elected Far Right in Britain and the USA engage in such fact denial behaviour and what their self-penned dreadfully racist plans would be for us and our children, were they ever to succeed in governing us (In particular, Sutton and Perry 2009 - see also: Sutton and Wright 2009). Not for nothing is holocaust denial a crime in some countries. Others perhaps take the view that it is better to allow freedom of speech and publication in order to to let us better understand, in order to tackle with proven facts, the views of holocaust deniers.

Fact denial behaviour and it's associated propagandising by scientists and historians, is, on any topic, I think, a thin end of the wedge concern that we all have in common as a communal duty to expose and tackle wherever we find it. Because, if we allow it in any quarter of our societies what kind of message does it send?

When it comes to our professional scientists and historians, we expect and rely upon them not to deny the existence of 100 per cent proven facts about what exists in print in the publication record. And were we to allow them to do so, what dreadful harms might our neglect of veracity further facilitate if we allow such clear fact denial to pass without whistle-blowing on the culprits? This important question underpins my "Dysology Hypothesis". But, the telling question is, how many are really brave enough to put their head above the parapet and, for the benefit of society and a necessarily veracious history, face the consequences of doing so? I am. Are you? What does history teach us happens to those who speak out in this way? Ask yourself, whose side are you on? Are you prepared to actually do anything about it?

image

Public Domain

Falsehoods favour the fearful

They Dethroned Muhammad Ali of his World Champion Title, Took away his Livelihood by Voiding his Licence to Box and Imprisoned Him for Refusing to Kill People in the Vietnam War.

They did that because they wanted to disgrace him for telling the truth, for speaking out for justice against the "majority view" that was held by so many idiots in the USA at the time. Always remember, the majority view is only transient once it is proven to be held by idiots. And the history of humanity teaches us that "majority views" are often later proven to be idiotic.

Seeing the Big Picture

Muhammad Ali taught me, as did Dr Martin Luther King Jr, as did Nelson Mandela, as did Patrick Matthew, that the majority view can be held by essentially very dangerous fact denying and evidence-blind idiots. For the sake of humanity, human advancement, peace and justice, we have a perfectly integrated moral and intellectual duty to point out such "corporate idiocy" and to tackle it in any ethical way we can

Introduction

image

(C) Thinker Media IncAttribution

It is wrong for university academics, or anyone else for that matter, to use obscene language to maliciously abuse anyone. Using misogynistic obscenities to do so is particularly offensive and threatening to women in general who are targeted or else witness others being so abused. In fact, in May 2016, the British Government launched a major initiative encouraging everyone to stand up, denounce, tackle and and report such abusive misogynistic behaviour occurring on the internet.

It is wrong for academic experts to mislead the press, other academics and the general public by making completely unevidenced, and therefore pseudo scholarly, claims that I - in scholarly, peer reviewed, science journal, publications - am making claims that I most certainly am not making; particularly when I have made the point about what I do and do not claim, explicitly clear in those very publications. Similarly, it is wrong for esteemed and respected expert scholars such as Dr John van Wyhe to do the same by claiming, fallaciously, that nothing new has been discovered, when those proven new, paradigm changing, discoveries have been confirmed as completely new and significant, in peer reviewed scholarly science journals. Furthermore, it is wrong for him to effectively conceal these newly discovered independently verifiable facts from others by claiming, from a position of expert professional authority, that the scholarly sources containing them are a conspiracy theory, when no kind of conspiracy theory whatsoever has been written. Moreover, it is wrong for the eminent expert van Wyhe to mislead the public, via writing to journalists of the press to try to convince them that my scientifically peer reviewed published work is "so silly", when in fact the newly discovered facts in my work very seriously and completely disprove prior-published knowledge beliefs of the world's leading Darwin scholars. Why would van Wyhe do such a thing? Is he "insanely jealous" or "wilfully ignorant"? What is the reason? Why deny the existence of 100 per cent proven newly discovered facts?

There is nothing "so silly" about the fact Darwin is newly proven to have lied from 1860 onward when he wrote sequentially in the Gardeners Chronicle, in a letter to another famous naturalist and from the third edition of the Origin of Species onward that Matthew's original ideas on natural selection were not read by any naturalists, were read by no one at all, or that they passed completely unnoticed. Darwin lied in that regard because the far from "so silly" proven fact of the matter is that the publication record shows Matthew had prior informed Darwin in published print in the Gardeners chronicle, via an exchange of open letters, that the naturalist Loudon had read and reviewed his ideas on natural selection, that his book was read by another eminent naturalist who feared pillory punishment were he to teach those ideas to his students and that his book was banned - because of those ideas - from the public library of Perth in Scotland. By lying to conceal what are today the newly proven routes of knowledge contamination between those who read his book, and the bombshell original ideas in it, and Darwin and Wallace, there is nothing silly about the fact that my peer reviewed article concludes, based on the 100 per cent proven evidence of his lies, that from 1860 Darwin committed plagiarism by glory theft of Matthew's claim to proven influence of the scientific community via Darwin's and Wallace's influencers and their influencer's influencers. All of this very serious - fully evidenced - information is explained very clearly in my book and in my article (Sutton 2014 and Sutton 2016). See also my peer reviewed British Society of Criminology paper for a brief overview of the same newly discovered facts of Darwin's proven science fraud (Here).

So what has, in reality, been newly discovered that eminent professional Darwin scholars apparently don't wish you to know about?

Here are the new, fully and independently verifiable, evidenced bombshell discoveries (Sutton 2014) that rewrite the history of discovery of natural selection. I originally discovered them by following the simplest rule of science "follow the data". Darwinites failed to find the New Data because they have a biased, Darwin deification habit, of ignoring any data that disconfirms their unevidenced belief that Darwin and Wallace discovered natural selection independently of Patrick Matthew's prior published conception of the entire thing.

1. Darwinites can no longer claim - as they did before my book was published - that Patrick Matthew's prior published conception of macroevolution by natural selection was unread by any naturalists before Darwin and Wallace replicated it. Because I originally discovered seven who cited the book that contains it in the pre-1859 literature. And Darwin and Wallace, and their influencers, knew four of them well. Hence it is most significantly newly discovered and 100 per cent proven that routes of potential knowledge contamination exist between Matthew's (1831) book to the pre-1858 minds of Darwin and Wallace. The date evidence of this newly discovered publication record now debunks the old Darwinite claim that Darwin's notebooks and private essays prove he independently discovered natural selection.

2. Darwinites can no longer claim, as they did before my book was published, that Darwin was an honest scientist. Because it is absolutely 100 per cent proven that from 1860 onward, following information provided by Matthew himself, that he lied about the prior readership of Matthew's book and the original ideas in it by other naturalists. Moreover, Darwin told at least seven additional lies in order to convince the scientific community that he independently conceived the idea of natural selection.

3. It can no longer be claimed that Wallace was an honest scientist. Because I originally discovered that he edited one of his letters in his autobiography to conceal his claim that he thought he was owed money and favours by Darwin and his associates for cooperating with the presentation of his replication of the concept of natural selection alongside that of Darwin in 1858.

4. Darwinites can no longer claim that Matthew's conception of natural selection was contained solely in the appendix of his book. I reveal exactly how much is actually contained in the main body of his book and that Darwin lied when he wrote that Matthew's ideas were solely contained in the appendix. Because Matthew referred him to just some of the relevant text from the main body of his book and Darwin wrote to admit the fact to Joseph Hooker.

5. Darwinites should no longer claim that Matthew never understood what he conceived on the grounds that he never shouted about it from the rooftops. Because I show how the first half of the 19th century was governed by laws and conventions that forbade anyone from doing such a thing, and others from discussing it. Moreover, Matthew told Darwin as much when he explained his book was banned from Perth public library in Scotland and that an eminent naturalist could not teach the original ideas in it for fear of pillory punishment.

6. Darwin, in 1859, originally four-word-shuffled Matthew's (1831) original term for his original conception from Matthew's (1831) 'natural process of selection' into 'process of natural selection', which is the only possible grammatically correct re-ordering of the four words Matthew used to name his discovery.

7. Darwin, was the first to replicate Matthew's (1831) powerful artificial versus natural selection analogy of differences to explain Matthew's original hypothesis, whilst claiming it as his own independent discovery. Indeed, Darwin not only replicated Matthew's brilliant analogy in his private essay, he used it to open the first chapter of the Origin of Species.

image

Public Domain

The Royal Society of Biology has one Unified Voice. Hardly Scientific Then? More Like a Cult?

Setting the historical record straight in the public interest

I have written this article in order to set the historical record straight and in order to reveal, in the public interest of the international community, by reference to what they have written for public consumption, about me and my published scholarly work, how certain, named, members of the scientific community have responded to my new, original and 100 per cent proven, independently verifiable discoveries about the history of discovery of natural selection.

Focusing on evidence for the apparent existence of a professional allurement of de facto corporate Darwinist pseudo scholarship over independently verifiable fact-led veracity, the main aim of this essay is to pose the telling question: "Why is it that Darwin's newly discovered greatest secret is a 100 per cent proven fact that career-Darwinists are so embarrassingly desperate to go to disingenuously pseudo-scholarly lengths to deny?"

What has been written about me and my peer reviewed scholarly new discoveries in the field of the history of discovery of natural selection?

I will begin with a truism that some of my critics, perhaps in their Darwin-loyal intellectual-panic to rush to condemn rather than read and engage with the "New Data", don't seem able or willing to grasp as such. Namely, that which is published in the literature in books, websites, blogs, scholarly science journals, and moderated content website articles, such as this one that you are currently reading, is effectively 100 per cent proven to exist.

If, in some deep philosophical sense, you doubt the truth of the above statement then let us do a very simple experiment to see who is right and most rational.

Please place your hand over this paragraph and then remove it. Do this 100 times. Write down how many times out of 100 the word "proven" remains in this sentence. If you doubt the evidence you have before you then repeat the experiment 10,000 times, a million times etc. If you still retain any doubt, apply for a research grant to enable you to expand your sample size and experimental conditions. Who knows, perhaps if you can get CERN involved you might find something going on at the sub- atomic level that proves me wrong in a way none of us can see without the right instruments of measurement.

The above scientific realism point was proven even more humorously, and with great painful irony, when Mr Julian Derry, a "visiting scientist" at Edinburgh University, author of a book on Darwin in Scotland, and professional Darwin Industry bronze "Darwin's Monkey" paraphernalia seller, took exception to Scottish newspaper reports (Alexander 2016a) on my lecture on Matthew and Darwin at the James Hutton Institute in Scotland. Mr Derry wrote a long note from his Edinburgh University email address to the Scottish press, and to several of my friends and associates, (see Alexander, 2016b; Sutton 2016a) to claim, amongst a host of other weird ranting and unsubstantiated things he wrote about me and my research, that:

“Darwin and Wallace did not plagiarise Matthew, and were not tipped off to his discovery of natural selection by their circle of friends and colleagues. Or rather, if any of this did occur, it has not been shown to have done so by the data presented by Dr Sutton."

“Why I say this, like this, carefully and cautiously, is because as a scientist, I must be confident beyond any reasonable doubt that the data and its interpretation do prove that these events happened as claimed. This is quite a different philosophy to the one underlying Dr Sutton’s research."

“I have never heard a scientist in any discipline use the kind of language that he does to criticise others and qualify his findings, for example, “100% certainty”. Every scientist I know worth their salt doesn’t even have the phrase in their vocabulary.”

Apart from the fact that in his rush to bury disturbing newly discovered and significant facts, that perhaps will threaten the Darwin publication and associated paraphernalia industry, Mr Derry misunderstands that the existence of the 100 per cent proven new discovery of several possible routes of knowledge contamination from Matthew to Darwin and Wallace does not mean that I claim it is 100 per cent proven that Darwin or Wallace were directly or indirectly influenced by Matthew. Instead, what I am claiming in that regard is that it is now newly 100 per cent proven, by my original research. that they could very well have most easily been, because what I originally discovered is that naturalists, who they knew, and who their influencer’s influencers knew, are now newly known to have read Matthew's book and the original bombshell ideas in it, because it is now 100 per cent proven that they actually cited Matthew's book, and some of them even mentioned the original ideas in it, in the published literature. And that 100 per cent newly proven fact, that other naturalists in fact did read Matthew's (1831) prior-publication of the conception of natural selection, is my original and new discovery.

Yet this original and new discovery is being "fact-denied" by leading academic Darwin scholars.

image

Public Domain

Research Ethics And The Public Nature Of Internet Communications

I was allowed a right of reply to Mr Derry’s accusations by the Courier (Alexander 2016c). In fully evidencing what I showed the Courier about the language used by Mr Derry not being particularly scientific, the forensic evidence I provided to the journalists and editors of the Courier was respectably sanitized and released into the public domain in a more genteel manner than you are about to witness here. In his own publications in social media, Mr Derry very ironically further refutes his own claims about what can be 100 per cent proven or not. Because, when it comes to the language scientists use to criticise others, it is further 100 per cent proven, by his very own published tweet, embedded in the Patrick Matthew blogsite, that his own obscene language reveals some of the salt he is worth to a respectable scientific community (see Sutton 2016a)

"Look here you supercilious cunt, I told you who I was immediately. Stuff ur haughty "Wasn't that hard for you was it?" up ur arse."

For the record, I have a private scholarly forensic archive of further future historic classic examples of such rabid unscientific language deployed in passionate Darwinist responses to the "New Data" of hard facts that painfully prove Darwin lied about who he knew had read Matthew's (1831) book and the original ideas in it. And as you can see I will not hesitate to make this data publicly available. Indeed, over the years, no doubt because I am not afraid to speak on important topics, I have received vile abuse from other quarters. By way of example, I have in my possession, stored electronically, an email from a somewhat esteemed professor who also called me the misogynistic C word in an email within the context of his defence of those being racist in his university against black people - behaviour to which I was objecting. He sent that obscene email from his university email account to my university email account, His university Dean was shown the email and yet he was subsequently promoted to Professor. To protect the reputation of his university and spare his career, I have kept that information out of the public domain, to date. However, I have recently come to wonder whether doing has been a great mistake. I believe such ‘uncomfortable information’ is of historical significance in helping the scientific community and wider public see the difficulties faced by those of us who speak out against wrong doing and also discover uncomfortable new and independently verifiable significantly dis-confirming hard-facts for any old un-evidenced “majority view”.

By way of further 100 per cent proof that what is published exists, in response to the peer reviewed publication of my (Sutton 2014a) criminology paper "The hi-tech detection of Darwin’s and Wallace’s possible science fraud: Big data criminology re-writes the history of contested discovery." Social media was once again used by a Darwinist scholar to abuse my work with taboo foul language. This time with another, thankfully much lesser taboo "c" word. Professor Nathaniel Comfort (see Sutton 2015a for the 100 per cent proof of it), a science historian of John Hopkins University, published the following New Year's day 2015 comment to the world:

"The paper's an ignorant piece of crap".

When I most politely invited Professor Comfort to explain his un-evidenced remark about my peer-reviewed article, and to debate the facts of the "New Data" with me in an independently moderated environment, he simply responded by blocking me on Twitter (See Sutton 2015a). Make of his behaviour what you will.

Why are Darwin scholars in such a desperate rush to deny that anything new has been discovered, when the facts prove it so clearly has? Why when confronted by the facts do they run and hide away?

My book 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret' (Sutton 2014) originally revealed the main bombshell discovery from my research that, as opposed to the prior “majority view” expert Darwin scholar knowledge belief (e.g Darwin 1861, de Beer 1962; Mayr 1982) that no naturalists, no biologists, or else no one at all, read the original ideas in it before Darwin and Wallace replicated them, that seven naturalists in fact did read Matthew's (1831) original ideas because it is 100 per cent proven that they actually cited his book in the published literature pre-1858; and that Darwin knew four of them personally, Wallace knew one and that three of those four played major roles at the epicentre and facilitation of their work on natural selection (see Sutton 2014). Furthermore, my book (Sutton 2104) originally revealed that it is 100 per cent proven that Darwin (1860) lied when he wrote that no naturalists and (Darwin 1861) no one at all read Matthew's original ideas before Matthew brought them to his attention in 1860, because Matthew (1860a, 1860b) had prior informed Darwin very clearly and in no uncertain terms that at least two eminent naturalists had read them, and fully understood them, that one feared pillory punishment were he to teach them, and that his book had been banned by the public library of Perth in Scotland because of the heretical ideas on the origin of species that are published in it!

My new discovery of the proven pre-1858 readership by naturalists of Matthew's original ideas was reported in the national press of Scotland and also in the national press of the United Kingdom (Knapton 2014). When invited to comment upon the new discovery in my book that other naturalists, known to Darwin and Wallace, in fact had read Matthew's original ideas before 1858, the world renowned Darwinist biographer Professor James Moore, responded with the confident creation of a new Darwinist fallacy, formed from nought but his own un-evidenced wishful thinking, without even bothering himself to check the facts, by way of reading the actual book containing them, upon which he was publicly commenting:

“I would be extremely surprised if there was any new evidence had not been already seen and interpreted in the opposite way.”

image

Public Domain

Darwin Scholars are a Disgrace to Science by their Pseudo-Scholarly "Corporate Denial" Responses to the "New Data" facts

As a social scientist, I find Moore’s desperate Darwinist pseudo-scholarly propagandising and ignorant significant fact-dismissal behaviour quite fascinating. Interestingly, at the time of writing, the much maligned Wikipedia encyclopaedia has Moore’s statement on its Patrick Matthew page as though it really is some kind of informed veracious fact that establishes that nothing new has been discovered, when in reality it is nothing of the kind. In light of such wilfully ignorant bias, and fallacy spreading, we should perhaps expect next to see reference to Mr Malec’s (2016) miniscule-portion review of an insignificant fraction of my book, presented as a review of the whole and main new discoveries, which are actually not reviewed,on the same page of Wikipedia. Given the way Moore’s uncomfortable fact-denying behaviour is so used as a disgracefully sly “MacDarwin” pseudo-scholarly device to hide the real, independently verifiable, significant “New Data” facts from the public, we shall have to wait and see if and how Malec’s dysology is deployed. My published right of reply response to Gregor Malec's grossly misleading "review" can be read in the journal in which he published it - here.

How might we explain the disingenuous and pseudo scholarly behaviour we are witnessing in the behaviour for the paid employees, and freelance consultants, of the Darwin Industry and among their ambitious toadying acolytes?

image

Mike SuttonAttribution

Fact Denial

At the time of writing, on their Patrick Matthew page, Wikipedia “agenda editor/s” of one or perhaps any unknown number is/are using the name “Dave Souza” to systematically delete dis-confirming published evidence for the fallacies they currently have on that page. Those trying to rectify the situation are being banned and blocked by Wikipedia in what can only be described as “public encyclopaedia editor fraud”. The 100 per cent independently verifiable facts are being deleted - along with references to them in the cited literature. This is happening within minutes of the facts being posted on that page – and the Wikipedia Editor “Dave Souza” is lying by claiming that all the fully referenced, cited, published, sources of that information does not exist! See how Wikipedia was caught in the very act of such fact deletion in a criminological sting operation HERE.

Professor James Moore's completely fallacious dismissal (Cohen 2001, p.31) of the "New Data", upon which he was directly asked to comment, being anything new might - depending on his state of mind and intentions - be described as (a) 'a psychotic negation of manifest facts'; (b) a 'plugging of leaks' in the orthodox story by lying (Cohen 2001, p.31) or else, (c) a refusal by way of being in a 'state of denial' by dually knowing and not knowing, and thereby refusing to believe it, or else suffering from an inability to 'take it in' (Cohen 2001, p.24), because, if true, the facts of the "New Data" seriously threaten his sense of personal and professional cultural identity.

My findings and further original ideas on how to interpret them were published in the science journal Aspects of Origin' (Sutton 2016), where - citing my 2014 book, Nullius, heavily - I took the implications of these discoveries forward with a dynamic and original typology of 'knowledge contamination' in order to develop our understanding of Darwin's and Wallace's likely culpability, along with that of their associates William Hooker, Joseph Hooker and John Lindley. That article was informally commissioned by Grzegorz Malec, who invited me to write it for peer review on the original findings in my (Sutton 2014) book. Accordingly, I sent the first draft to him personally on Sunday 15th November 2015. Mr Malec wrote back to confirm receipt the following day. I am concerned, therefore that he wrote a review of my book (Malec 2015) that ignores its main findings regarding who we now know who cited Matthew's (1831) book pre 1858, and what they then went on to do. Because Mr Malec's review of my book - which, as you will shortly read about in far more detail below, the internationally famous Darwinist historian, Dr John van Whye, desperately wishes the public to read - focuses on my less important, and far less prominently presented, findings about who was apparently first to be second in print with apparently unique Matthewisms.

In recommending this pseudo scholarly review of my work to the Scottish press (details here), as he did, Dr van Wyhe must be utterly delighted with Malec and perhaps why he thinks of him a good scholar worthy of recommendation to the Scottish press? The pseudo scholarly shame of it!

Malec effectively then indeed boldly, portrays a relatively minor part of my book as though it is the main findings presented in it. But even in that regard, Mr Malec appears to been able to find only one, out of the 30 examples I found, can be currently re-butted. However, I must stress, at this appropriate juncture, that I am most grateful for Mr Malec’s excellent rebutting in this one single regard. His finding shall most certainly be attributed to him in the second edition of my book.

I know Mr Malec has been trying hard to find other examples of apparent unique Matthewisms to rebut; although oddly he fails to mention that fact in his review. Instead, he, arguably, somewhat gives the impression that there are others that have been rebutted. Perhaps there are others he knows of? But if there are, he has not yet told us of them.

To pose a question: 'How do I know Mr Malec has been working hard trying to find others to rebut besides the one out of 30 that he informs us he finally succeeded with?' Because he contacted me, revealing inadvertently, a mistake he made in thinking he had rebutted the fact, originally reported in my book (Sutton 2014) that, contrary to the Kentwood Wells's (1973) mockery of Loren Eiseley's etymological research on Matthew, all the evidence so far from my BigData hi-tech search among over 35 million publications suggests, most surprisingly, that Patrick Matthew does, in fact, at least appear to have coined the term and basic concept of the Peace Corps and that John F. Kennedy's policy wonks, in actual point of evidence-led fact, could well have got it by way of Matthewian knowledge contamination during their research interviews with missionaries. What Mr Malec fails to add for balance in his criticism of my book can be found instead in the comments section of one of my blog posts (Sutton 2013), where writing in 2015 under what he later admitted by way of email is his pseudonym "GZEMAL", Mr Grzegorz Malec admits that Patrick Matthew does appear to be first to have coined the term and originated the basic concept of the modern US Peace Corps. So why not - for balance - add that into his review to let readers of his review, in Aspects of Origin, know that despite his mere rubbishing rhetoric of my research that the facts of his own research show that the troublesome "first to be second hypothesis" is far from debunked, despite Malec’s known extremely limited, best efforts, to date, to debunk it?

If Mr Malec can dis-confirm more than just the one out of 30 examples in my book, on this theme, I have asked him to let us know.

In the spirit of objective enquiry, which I hope might one day rub –off on Mr Malec by association with it, I even set up an open competition, with 29 free copies of my book as potential prizes, so as to encourage he and others to dis-confirm this most troublesome hypothesis (Sutton 2016b). But even if all 30 examples of apparently unique Matthewisms in my book, and who was apparently “first to be second” in published print with them, are dis-confirmed, that does not do what Mr Malec appears to think dis-confirming just one example out of 30 does. Because debunking the first to be second (F2b2) hypothesis would not mean "There is no Darwin's greatest Secret", as he claims disconfirming just one goes a long way to doing. Despite what the dreadfully disingenuous title of Mr Malec's review of my book proclaims, in light of the lack of substance in his review of it. The reason why debunking the F2b2 hypothesis does not mean "there is no Darwin's greatest secret" is because Darwin's greatest secret is the main theme of my book, which the same as the main theme of my (Sutton 2016) article in the journal Aspects of Origin. Let me explain.

To necessarily repeat the point already made, for emphasis, so that I make myself as profoundly clear as possible, Darwin's greatest secret is that it is newly 100 per cent proven that:

Surpassing the failure of traditional Darwin scholar rubber thimble paper turning in the libraries of the world, the cutting edge high technology of the Google library project, of some 35 million searchable publications, enabled me to originally discover the "New Data" that 100 per cent proves Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace fallaciously claimed that no one read Matthew's prior-published discovery and explanatory examples of natural selection before they replicated both. And the "New Data" 100 per cent proves it, because the proof is in the previously undiscovered 19th century printed words in publications that absolutely prove Matthew's book, and the original ideas in it, were cited by influential naturalists, known both to Darwin and Wallace and their influencers, and their influencer’s influencers, before they replicated those same ideas - claiming they alighted upon them independently of Matthew's prior publication of the same. Darwin would later fallaciously excuse himself from 1860 onward by claiming those ideas were unread before he and Wallace replicated them. Darwin is 100 per cent proven to have lied in writing that excuse, because he wrote that as an absolute self-serving lie after Matthew had informed him of two influential naturalists who read and understood his original ideas, and their significance, and that his book had been banned, because of those same bombshell heretical ideas, by Perth Public Library in Scotland. Credulous Darwin scholars have been parroting their namesake’s lies about the pre-1858 readership of Matthew’s original ideas ever since. They have done so in order to necessarily construct and maintain the now newly busted myths that support the Darwinist paradigm of tri-independent discovery of Matthew’s prior published conception of macro evolution by natural selection.

In social media and in statements made by expert Darwinists (e.g.Dr Jon van Wyhe 2016), I have been effectively accused of being a conspiracy theorist - with no evidence presented to support such an accusation against my peer reviewed and published work. And that makes such a serious accusation against my published work pseudo-scholarly!

I don't think I am a conspiracy theorist. Indeed, if I was such a person, I think the easiest one to dream-up would be a fantastical tale that involved imaginings of a "Don't tell Darwin or Wallace" plan to explain why four people, who Darwin knew personally, and one who edited Wallace's Sarawak paper, who knew Darwin to be working on the problem of the origin of species, had read the one book in the world that Darwin and Wallace most needed to read, because it contained the full prior-published hypothesis of macroevolution by natural selection, but deliberately failed to tell them about.

More rationally, I think the contrast between Neil deGrasse Tyson's definition of a conspiracy theory and Stanley Cohen's sociological 'state of denial' is a particularly useful way to assess the importance of the solid and independently verifiable “New Data” evidence we do have.

On April 7th 2011, Neil deGrasse Tyson published on Twitter a fabulously simple definition of conspiracy theories: 'Conspiracy theorists are those who claim cover-ups whenever insufficient data exists to support what they're sure is true.' I love that. It's perfect.

By contrast, it is not strictly speaking an actual conspiracy of silence when a number of people, even millions as in Nazi Germany, and later in Chile and Argentina, and when worldwide a few thousand Darwin Scholars today, see hard and independently verifiable evidence but choose not to engage with it. In this regard, the late Stanley Cohen (2011, p. 1) tells us;

'A sociological "state of denial" exists when sufficient evidence is presented but dismissed: '...because the information registers well enough, but its implications - cognitive, emotional or moral - are evaded, neutralized or rationalized away.'

Moreover, Cohen. explains how we can determine culpability in states of denial:

'Except in the most obscure cases, we can reconstruct enough to determine who could have known, must have known or should have known what.' (Cohen 2011, p.126).

Avoiding the scholarly necessity to at least try to engage objectively with the published facts of what has been newly discovered about the routes of knowledge contamination between Matthew and Darwin, the editors and peer reviewers of the Linnean Journal allowed Dr Mike Weale (2015) to summarily dismiss any critical scholarly engagement with the significance of the New Data in my book (Sutton 2014) by writing simply that in no more than his own mere and un-evidenced opinion, the evidence is weak that Matthew influenced Darwin. This is just one more evidenced example of how the apparently de facto corporate Darwin Industry misleads the public by effectively hiding away from them the facts that salaried academic career biologists, and associated Darwinist historians of science, apparently dare not face.

Darwin (1860, 1861) lied about what he learned from Matthew (1860a; 1860b) regarding Loudon, along with another unnamed naturalist of an eminent university, and the staff running Perth public library. That lie was enough for credulous Darwin scholars, ignoring the Nullius in Verba motto of the Royal Society, to be thrown off the scent of the routes of prior knowledge contamination from the original ideas of Matthew that Darwin replicated. And Darwin kept up his great lie to the day he died. Ever since, ambitiously credulous, blind-sighted Darwin Scholars have carved out lucrative careers and been rewarded, for example, by the Royal Society with Darwin Medals, for parroting those lies and dressing them up for public presentation as great knowledge-truths (see Sutton 2016).

I don't suppose the eminent Royal Society will any-time soon award anyone it's prestigious Darwin medal for absolutely proving two of it's earlier medal winners and the medal's namesake published significantly essential tri-independent discovery paradigm supporting fallacies about the pre-1858 readership of Matthew's conception of macro evolution by natural selection? So there goes any hopes of a Darwin Medal for me – or for anyone else who chooses to write the uncomfortable facts that bust the myth that supports the industry that mints those medals and lines the pockets of its winners.

What does that tell us about the pervasively bias-corrupt state of scholarship in the history of biology in this area?


Apparently De Facto Corporate Darwinism

By way of an explanatory analogy, just as the MacDonald's hamburger chain insists that a junk-food burger and fries in any of their restaurants in Poland must taste and look exactly the same as any in England or the USA, the similarly punterizing corporate "MacDarwinisation" of the history of discovery of natural selection seemingly ensures that any book or article, or indeed any book review, containing a "Matthew and Darwin sandwich" must do the same.

Any ingredients (uncomfortably dis-confirming facts) that change the flavour of the traditional "MacDarwin" junk-scholarship sandwich are thereby rejected by the managers' (Darwin scholars) in the quality control department (university employment panels, editorial boards, expert advisory board members, and expert peer reviewers). Any journals or publishing houses refusing to comply will be abandoned by Darwin scholars afraid for their careers.

On which note, it cannot pass unremarked that the esteemed Darwinist historian Dr John van Wyhe either left the Expert Advisory board of the journal - Philosophical Aspects of Origin - as soon as my fact-led peer-reviewed article on Darwin's lying glory stealing science fraud (Sutton 2016) was published, because he did so in protest, or else it was just an unfortunate coincidence. Wherever the truth lies, immediately after Dr van Wyhe's resignation, the Journal's editor, Dariusz Sagan, with some email prompting research manoeuvrings to the press on my own part to seek out the truth, was compelled to make the following statement to the Scottish press, via an email to the Journalist Michael Alexander of the Scottish newspaper: the Courier:

'It is true that Dr. John van Wyhe was the member of the Advisory Board of our journal and resigned from it shortly after Dr. Mike Sutton’s article had been published. However, he didn’t reveal his reasons. Obviously, Dr. van Wyhe was entitled to resign from the board at any point and we respect his decision. We are not especially eager to speculate on the topic of his resignation, but, of course, one of the possibilities is that it was related to the publication of the controversial article of Dr. Sutton. We had not explicitly stated earlier our editorial policy, as we believed it was clear to anyone who looked into the broad range of the articles published in the journal. As things stand now, our editorial policy has been published on our website in order to avoid misunderstanding.'

Whether he intended it or not, by resigning from the journal's expert advisory board after the publication of my article (Sutton 2016), van Wyhe, who had been on the Journal’s Expert Board since at least 2014, has effectively distanced himself from professional involvement with the uncomfortable “New Data” in my article. The “New Data” comprises independently verifiable 100 per cent proven facts, which make it an unwanted flavour apart - because it is essentially tri-independent discovery paradigm busting hard-data. And such data, it seems, must be kept apart from Matthew and Darwin articles published by any journal that wishes to remain within the apparently de facto "MacDarwin Corporation" of the controlling and so-called "Darwin Industry".The story was later reported in the press on 17th May 2016 (here).

There are important messages here for those starting out in and wishing to remain in careers associated with biology and the history of discovery of natural selection. I can, at the time of writing these words, think of no other science journal, other than 'Philosophical Aspects of Origin', which would be prepared to publish the hard and independently verifiable evidence to prove the fact that Darwin lied about the pre-1858 readership of Matthew's ideas. Sending factual torpedoes such as that, to sink the myths keeping the pervasive, powerful and lucrative "Darwin Industry" armada of books, articles and associated memorabilia afloat is likely to get one labelled as an unwelcome, unprofitable, unemployable, troublemaker.

Such behaviour as that witnessed by those in the Darwin Industry today, towards unwanted, uncomfortable, paradigm-disconfirming New Data, is possibly well adapted to achieve a power of occupancy in the so called “corporate university” of today. We shall have to see. I for one intend to show that facts not debunked lies and claptrap are fittest to survive.

Relatedly, on this very topic of the so-called "new corporate universities", it has been noted that (West 2016) :

"Pandering to the intellectual tastes and preferences of journal editors may be the most effective means of career advancement, which rewards conformity rather than originality.

In which case, thank goodness for this Philosophical Aspects of Origin journal, which Dr van Wyhe ran away from because it did not conform to his taste and preferences immediately following the publication of my article, as he disclosed in an email to the journalist Michael Alexander

van Whye (2016):

I resigned from the panel of the journal when I learned that they had misrepresented the nature of the journal when inviting me to join the panel. It was described as a journal about science and origins, when in fact the journal supports the creationist ideology called Intelligent Design. I had at any rate never had any further contact with them, so no content in the journal was ever seen by me before publication.

Dr Sutton's allegations about a purported influence of Matthew on Darwin and Wallace are not new.

This conspiracy theory is so silly and based on such forced and contorted imitations of historical method that no qualified historian could take it seriously.

By the way, someone has just sent me a review of Sutton: http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/images/FAG/2015.t.12/art.10.pdf

Best wishes,

John van Wyhe

So the esteemed Dr van Whye is either wilfully ignorant of the new fact that my original and new discoveries completely dis-confirm the exhortations of the world’s leading Royal Society Darwin medal winners Darwin such as Sir Gavin de Beer (1962) and Ernst Mayr (1982) and the lies told by Darwin in the same regard, that no naturalists, no biologists, or no one at all, read Matthew’s original ideas before 1858 or else he is being dishonest and misleading the public by misleading a journalist making enquires, a representative of the free press!

Which, one of these only two possibilities we must wonder, is it? And where on Earth is the conspiracy theory of which van Wyhe writes? Moreover, a most telling question is: if Dr van Wyhe really does newly despise the journal he left because he newly believes it supports the intelligent design movement, why on Earth would he refer a journalist to a book review, published in that very same journal, on my book, which is published elsewhere?

The New Data discovery of the routes of possible knowledge contamination from Matthew to Darwin and Wallace are new. Because before my research not a single person had ever published the fact that other naturalists in fact did read Matthew’s ideas before 1858. It was only known that Loudon had read those ideas. But before me none noted that Loudon was a naturalist. Had they done so they, not I, should have been first to prove Darwin a liar in that regard and first to then “follow the data” to Loudon editing Blyth’s (1835, 1836) two influential articles. One anonymous peer reviewer of my (Sutton 2016) article wrote that it was the case that I had made an original discovery regarding the fact Matthew’s book was in fact read by other naturalists pre-1858.

It seems, therefore, that Dr van Wyhe needs to learn the difference between a conspiracy theory and his own sociological “state of denial” of the existence of what really has been newly and significantly discovered. I could write and send as a press statement to journalists similarly silly disparaging end unevidenced mocking remarks about Dr van Wyhe’s “silliness”. But he has done that for us in his apparent attempt to mislead the public though the press by way of his factually incorrect statements to the Scottish press. Because absolutely contrary to his claims, the truth of the matter is that the facts in my article (Suton 2016) and my book (Sutton 2014) are completely original and new, there is absolutely no conspiracy theory. Most significantly, there is nothing "so silly" about the fact that the new facts, which I originally discovered, completely disprove the old Darwinte "knowledge belief" that no naturalist read Matthew's bombshell conception before 1860. The shame of it!


Frequently made criticisms, and frequently asked questions, about the "New Data"


I have been presented with many criticisms and asked many telling questions by Darwin scholars since the 2014 publication of my original discovery of the 'New Data' about who we now newly know really did read Matthew's ideas before 1858, because they cited his 1831 book in the literature.

However, it has been more than 12 months since I have encountered any that are new. A long list of these criticisms, and associated questions and answers can be found on the PatrickMatthew.com website, on the 'Darwinist Defences Rebutted page (see Sutton 2015).

On which note, please note further that, in his review of my book, Mr Malec raises no original arguments against the New Data. Unfortunately, this observation is not particularly discernible from the opinions he presents as his own criticisms in his review of my book. By way of just one example, Malec makes a meal of earlier published criticisms of the work of the esteemed historian outcast from the apparently de facto "MacDarwin Corporation" of science, Loren Eiseley.

Mr Malec presents the well-known published criticisms of Eiseley in his criticism of my book, implying therein that I was unaware of them. In reality, the etymological fallacy issue Malec raises is raised and discussed at length in my book with reference to the Darwin scholars, Gould and Wells, who first made them about Eiseley's work. But in his one-sided cherry picking on this topic, Malec fails to provide the objective balance that I aim for when I present the actual research evidence, which absence of any evidence in his best effort hatchet-job review suggests, none have yet been able to refute, that exposes Gould's (1983; 2002) confident assertions as a ludicrous "Frankfurtian bullshitting" (Frankfurt 2005) etymological fallacy of his own making. Because Gould claimed the term 'natural selection' was common currency in the literature.

Moreover, in further seemingly safely conformist keeping with the apparent de-facto requirements of "MacDarwinist" scholarship, Mr Malec obediently keeps out of his review of my book particular "de facto banned ingredients" of the "MacDarwin Corporation". Malec dutifully cherry-steps away from writing about Eisley's (1979) profound discovery that Darwin, in his private essay of 1844, replicated Matthew's hugely important artificial versus natural selection explanatory analogy of differences, using the exact same example of trees raised in nurseries versus those growing in the wild. But this seemingly banned factual ingredient is in my book, and it is highly significant in terms of Gould's cherry-stepping to ignore it. Moreover, this important discovery by Eiseley is discussed in depth in my book regarding what the first to be second hypothesis tells us about Robert Mudie, David Low and their direct links to Darwin and his other influencers (see Sutton 2015b).

Perhaps what Gould left out and what Malac leaves out in his review of my book is all just an unfortunate dual-coincidence and has nothing at all to do with the seemingly de facto "banned ingredients" that must never be used by an ambitious academic wishing to succeed in a world dominated by powerful "MacDarwinists"? Here we are not talking about any kind of conspiracy, of course, just poor scholarship with a huge ‘state of denial’ bias towards not presenting any facts that challenge the tri-independent discovery paradigm.

'So many philosophers and historians of science struggle in vain in futile efforts to prove that since the past of science is noble and glorious, it is free of error. And then historians of science undertake the impossible task of sweeping all these fine errors under the rug. And when they fail to do so, they blame.'

Joseph Agassi (2008, p. vii).

The fact that the newly discovered bombshell discomfiting facts overturn prior mere knowledge beliefs, has clearly led some scientists to react dishonorably by embarking upon desperate attempts to impugn the reputation of the discover in order to bully them into silence and discourage others from learning new - palpably superior - knowledge. These dysologically unethical scientists behave this way because they have a career-stake in promoting at the expense of veracity. In sum, unethical attempts at fact burial is a career decision. Another who attempted this fools errand is Dr George Beccaloni - Curator of the Wallace Collection of the Natural History Museum, London, having first been caught trying to convince others about my book being wrong, even though he had not even read it (see here), was subsequently proven wrong at every turn whenever he followed me on various sites in order to try to debate the facts with me. Beccaloni hilariously switched from attacker to victim and cried that I was bullying him! You can read the facts on that episode and access the debate in question via one of my blog posts (click here).

image

Public Domain

George Beccaloni later admitted to my publisher Bob Butler of Thinker Media that he had not even read my book

The Seemingly de facto Facts that are, Apparently, Not Welcome in a "Matthew and MacDarwin Corporation Sandwich" and the apparently de-facto unwritten "rules" for dealing with them

  1. Never mention the fact that Darwin wrote the opposite to what Matthew told him in the pages of the Gardener’s Chronicle of 1860 about the prior readership of On Naval Timber (Matthew 1831)and the original ideas in it (see sutton 2016). If, however, you are forced to mention it then see point 2 below.
  2. If ever you are forced by debate to mention Darwin's lies, always deny that they are lies. Never admit that Darwin wrote falsehoods, that the facts prove he knew to be false at the time he wrote them about the prior-readership of Matthew's original ideas on natural selection. Never admit that those falsehoods were absolutely necessary to create a paradigm that makes Darwin's and Wallace's independent conceptions of Mathews prior published ideas plausible. If cornered in such a debate, argue that Darwin's effectively literally necessary falsehood was not meant to be taken literally. If called on your stupidity: run away, clam up, write obscene language, make unfounded ludicrous accusations against Sutton. Also claim he has discovered nothing new and, unlike you, and those he has proven wrong, claim he does not understand science or how to conduct historical research. As a last resort, do a van Wyhe and claim it’s all a silly conspiracy theory.
  3. Deny that the Royal Society Darwin Medal winners Ernst Mayr and Sir Gavin de Beer meant it to be taken literally when they wrote, literally in defence of Darwin's replications of Matthew's original work, that no one whatsoever/no biologists read Matthew's prior-published original ideas pre-1858 (see Sutton 2016 in this regard). Deny they meant it literally, despite the fact that such literal interpretation of what they clearly wrote is absolutely necessary to support the paradigm of Darwin and Wallace's independent discovery of Matthew's prior-published hypothesis.
  4. Never mention Eiseley's bombshell discovery that Darwin's private essay of 1844 incredibly replicated Matthew's explanatory artificial versus natural selection analogy of difference between trees grown in nurseries and those grown in the wild.
  5. Never mention that books and scholarly articles and book chapters on trees and naval timber were immensely popular with the scientific community in the first half of the nineteenth century. In particular, never mention Evelyn's book (1664) classic work Silva: or, a discourse of forest-trees, and the propagation of timber in His Majesty's dominions. Is the first and most treasured book published by the Royal Society. Instead parrot Darwin's feeble excuse that no one (implying himself) can be blamed for failing to read an obscure book on naval architecture and forest trees were of interest to himself or any other naturalist. At all costs never mention the number of such books in Darwin's private notebook of books read (see Sutton 2016 for the facts).
  6. Never mention the fact, proven in Matthew's (1860a) letter to the Gardener's Chronicle, and read by Darwin, that his ideas on natural selection most certainly were not merely contained within the appendix of his book. And never mention the fact that Darwin (1861) is proven to have lied when he claimed they were. He is proven to have lied, because he admitted they were not contained merely in the book's appendix in a private letter to his best friend the naturalist Joseph Hooker (see Sutton 2014, 2016 for the full details). Instead, always parrot the myth started by Darwin (1860, 1861) that Matthew hid his ideas away in the appendix of an inappropriately titled book.
  7. Never mention the fact that Darwin’s private notebooks reveal that he held in his hands five books that cited Matthew's (1831) On Naval Timber and Arboriculture. (See Sutton 2014).
  8. When claiming Matthew's book was obscure, never mention the fact it was cited pre-1858 in the hugely influential Encyclopaedia Britannica and most prominently advertised within it (see Sutton 2014).
  9. Never mention the laws and rules on sedition and heresy on the question of the origin of species that forbade discussion of the bombshell ideas in Matthew's book in the first half of the 19th century. Never mention the fact it contained radical, essentially seditious, political Chartist principles supported by Matthew’s observations on natural selection. Never mention the violent reform riots that broke out in Britain in 1831 – the very the year it was published! Instead, ask credulously why more people did not cite Matthew's book and mention the heretical ideas in it at the time and ask in ignorance why Matthew did not "trumpet his bombshell discovery from the rooftops" if he understood the importance of what he had written (see Sutton 2014). Consequently, you must never mention that Matthew informed Darwin in their published Gardener's Chronicle letters (see Sutton 2014 for the details) that his book was banned by the public lending library of Perth in Scotland (nicknamed the Fair City) for his heretical scientific ideas on the origin of species. Never mention the fact that in the same letter Matthew informed Darwin of a naturalist and professor of a celebrated university who had read yet feared to teach Matthew’s (1831) published ideas on natural selection for fear of pillory punishment (see Matthew 1860b).
  10. Ask why no one came forward and accused Darwin of plagiarising Matthew after 1858. In doing so never mention the facts revealed by Sutton (2014) regarding just how many, who would almost certainly have known, were old, dead and retired by then, or else were close friends and associates of Darwin and (unlike Matthew) were ambitiously conservative members of Darwin's elite 'old-boy-network' scientific clubs. Never mention that the vast majority of gentleman naturalists of the 19th century were anti-Chartists - and that Matthew was a famous Chartist representative for Scotland and that he wove his political chartist and vehemently mocking anti-religious ideas throughout his 1831 book. In this context, be sure not to mention that, unlike Matthew, Darwin kept a plainly stated accepted belief of the idea of "The Creator" in all editions of the Origin of Species and that most of his fellow naturalists were passionate Christians. Also be sure not to focus on the manner and customs of the "gentleman naturalists" of the 19th century, which would have made it a complete and utter professionally suicidal faux pas to accuse another in print of plagiarism (see Sutton 2014 for an in-depth evidence-led contextual discussion).
  11. If you must cite the fact that Loudon reviewed Mathew's book in 1832, write that he possibly did not understand all of what was in it. Never reveal that he actually wrote that Matthew appeared to have something original to say on, to use his precise words: "the origin of species"!
  12. Never follow the data to any place that dis-confirms the Darwinist triumphant tri-independent discovery paradigm. Under no circumstances mention the fact Loudon, after 1832, went on to edit two of Blyth's most influential articles on organic evolution (see Sutton 2014).
  13. Never mention the fact that to date, out of an examination of over 35 million publications (see Sutton 2014), Matthew was apparently first to coin the term 'natural process of selection' and that Darwin was apparently first to re-shuffle the exact same four words into the only possible grammatically correct second usage of them to apparently first coin the term 'process of natural selection' to name Matthew's original conception while claiming it as his own independent conception. (See Sutton 2104).
  14. Claim the terms 'natural selection' and 'artificial selection' were either coined by Darwin, or else, contrariwise, that they were standard terms in the literature pre 1859. Never mention Sutton's discovery that they were apparently exceedingly rare but that Darwin certainly never coined them (See Sutton 2014).
  15. Never mention that fact that when he writes that some of what he has originally discovered is 100 per cent proven Sutton (Sutton 2014, 2016) very clearly and plainly explains that he has 100 per cent proven that Mathew's book was cited by seven naturalists pre-1858 and that Darwin knew four of them and Wallace knew two and that they both were influenced and their work facilitated by them before 1858. Never mention that Sutton means it is now 100 per cent proven that knowledge contamination routes from Matthew's 1831 book to the pre-1858 brains of both Darwin and Wallace are now 100 per cent proven to exist. Never mention that fact that when he writes about what is 100 per cent proven, Sutton is also referring to the fact Darwin lied by writing the exact opposite to what Matthew, in 1860, had prior informed him in writing about the prior readership of his ideas. Instead, be disingenuous by writing a new fallacy in order to kick-start a new "MacDarwin myth". In this regard, the success of "New MacDarwin Myth" requires you to claim that Sutton is claiming that it is 100 per cent proven that Darwin definitely read Matthew's book before 1858.
  16. Never mention the eight lies that Darwin told in order to achieve primacy over Matthew for Matthews prior-published ideas (see Sutton 2014 for the full details).
  17. Never mention the most curious fact that Darwin was totally incurious about how it possibly happened that Matthew so fully "anticipated" Darwin and Wallace for the discovery that Darwin spent most of his scientific life writing about. Never ask, as Sutton (2014) does, why Darwin was not interested in Matthew as a person and was uninterested in his experience, expertise and observations and his many other publications, as a farmer and noted botanist, plant breeder and agriculturalist. And never mention this curious fact in relation to the fact that Darwin spent his working life studying and writing about the work of other breeders and agriculturalists.
  18. Never mention the fact that Matthew fought all his life in the press for full recognition for his bombshell discovery and proven influence on other naturalists who he knew read his book (Sutton 2014). Instead claim only that Darwin treated Matthew very fairly by fully acknowledging his publication priority after 1860.
  19. Always claim that Sutton (2014) has discovered nothing new.
  20. Never mention the fact that Sutton claims his original bombshell discoveries, of who we newly know definitely did read Matthew's 1831 book and the bombshell ideas in, because they cited both in the literature, 100 per cent proves that the old Darwinist paradigm of tri-independent discovery of the hypothesis of macroevolution by natural selection rests on the punctured myth that no one who could possibly have influenced Darwin and Wallace pre-1858 with Matthew's ideas. Accordingly, never mention Sutton's (2014, 2016) conclusive evidence-led claim that, rationally as scientists, we must now have a revolutionary new discovery paradigm (Kuhn 1962) that places Matthew over Darwin and Wallace as the greatest immortal, discoverer, original thinker and likely influencer of both Darwin and Wallace on natural selection.
  21. Above all, always follow the hypocritical golden rule of seemingly de facto corporate Darwinism: "Cherry-pick whatever small fact you can find in order to seek to undermine the "New Data" on the discovery of natural selection and cherry-step away from any facts, especially all the known “ New Data” independently verifiable facts (see Sutton 2014, 2016), that quite obviously and clearly dis-confirm the Darwinist tri-independent discovery paradigm.
  22. When confronted by a journalist, particularly a Scottish one, inquiring about your motives for anything you do, fail to do, or wrote about Sutton’s New Data discoveries, which Mr Malec left out of his review of Sutton’s (2104) book, send them Malec’s review as though what is in it is some kind of sound reason to claim Sutton has discovered nothing new or significant. Under no circumstances show them this essay which reveals what van Whye wrote to the press about Sutton and what Malac left out of his review and the proposed reasons for why both men might have, consciously or subconsciously done what they did.
image

Public Domain

Delusional Darwin Scholars

Does it really matter?

I would direct anyone asking me this question about whether historical facts in the history of scientific discovery really matter to Edzard Ernst's (2015) book 'A Scientist in Wonderland'. In that book, Ernst tells the story of how his presentation of the facts that homeopathic remedies have never been proven to be effective as a medicine led to his professional persecution by employees of Prince Charles and Exeter University, effectively undermining his health and forcing him into early retirement.

Ernst has written about how allowing scientific myths and fallacies, and denying dis-confirmingfacts, created an enabling environment in which human atrocities flourished in Nazi Germany.

To necessarily invoke 'Godwin's Law', I suggest to anyone who does not see this point to go now and Google the phrase "The Man who refused to salute Hitler". Having done so, if reading the historical story of August Landmesser does not teach you anything then you have not learnt why it is important to learn from history when it is important to know exactly when the "majority view" is held by independently verifiable hard-fact denying idiots. Because if we fail to learn such lessons then we will be forever doomed to repeat the past mistakes of humankind. And that is one definition of living in Hell.

Paradoxically, supporting - or else being indifferent towards - a proven idiotic "majority view" is seemingly the safest immediate bet for any one individual. This observation explains both psychologically and sociologically why so many people, including scientists, supported the Nazis in wartime Germany and why so many biologists comply with the uncomfortable fact denying practices corporate Darwinism. But in the long term, the group - meaning more of the individuals in it - suffers terribly for failing to address the truth by studying the real facts of any matter and then admitting they are veracious and interpreting, rationally, what they mean. Ironically, we are talking here about the need to "adapt or die" at the immediate and long term individual and group level.

History teaches us that we humans do rather badly when we fail to adapt to new facts. And that is why we should all care more about veracity and less about the more immediate pressing career demands to conform to today's corporate university and "MacDarwin" culture.

When Dr Mike Weale accused me of creating my own Supermyth about Matthew and Darwin, I challenged him to debate that issue with me before his peers, on camera. I have given many talks on the topic of Darwin’s plagiarism of Matthews’ discovery at universities such as the University of Liverpool and the James Hutton Institute, and other prestigious locations such as the historic Conway Hall in London. Weale refused my invitation on the grounds that he feared I would mock him in public.

Perhaps Weale is right to be afraid. One needs to bring facts to a fact fight and all Weale has, as revealed in his feeble attempts to debate with me on his website, are nought but a set of mere beliefs and opinions, all of which are completely debunked by the independently verifiable “New Data” facts that have so upset him.

image

Public Domain

Most Darwin Scholars are cannily indifferent to the paradigm changing New Data facts

Moreover, on the topic of Supermyths, I was invited in 2016 to write an article for the prestigious newsletter of the organisation HealthWatch: for Science and integrity in medicine (you can see a snippet of it highlighted online here). The article is an important one, because it explains how my busting of the spinach, Popeye and Iron decimal point supermyth reveals the hypocritical irony of the scientific community using an unfounded myth as though it were veracious evidence of the need check data before making it public or credulously disseminating it. On which note, Professor Steve Jones (FRS) a most famous Darwin Scholar is a notable patron of Health Watch. We can only hope therefore that the Supermyth message will somehow “knowledge contaminate” his brain. Because he is sure to read it. The supermyth concept, as I has evolved from spinach to the story of Matthew and Darwin, will not go away and I was rather flattered a fortnight ago when the science journalist Daniel Engbar wrote a very thoughtful article on the topic “Who will Debunk the Debunkers?”

Conclusions and the way forward

Alarmingly, there are scientists and historians of science working in our universities today who are prepared to deny that facts exist, or else - for whatever reason - to mislead the public about their existence and what they mean for the history of scientific discovery. Their behaviour is now data for psychologists and sociologists to study in order to know how and why individuals and groups behave in such a biased and reprehensible way.

Darwinists, named for their much deified hero, have traditionally worshipped Darwin for his honesty, integrity and originality. The "real facts" prove they have been worshipping nothing more than a lying, replicating glory thief. In other words, they have credulously bet their careers on the wrong scientist. We should not expect an admission of this inevitability to be forthcoming anytime soon. Because esteemed research (Kuhn 1962) teaches us that paradigm changes in science take time and are at first met with fierce resistance. I think I have demonstrated some early examples of such fierce fact-denying and fact concealing resistance in this essay, by recording here, for historical purposes, the dreadfully abusive and pseudo-scholarly public, published, reactions of junior and senior Darwin scholars to the new independently verifiable, hard-evidence-led, natural selection discovery paradigm of 'More Likely Than Not Matthewian Knowledge Contamination'.

Darwinists, are compelled to deny the existence of or else the importance of the "New Data", because their worship of Darwin is like a stack of dominoes. If one of the "New Facts" is acknowledged then the whole stack tumbles.

Explanations for why expert Darwin scholars failed to see the obvious and significant fact that Darwin lied when confronted by Matthew in the Gardeners Chronicle in 1860, can be understood in terms of 'blindsight' cognitive bias, and other explanations provided by Cohen's (2001) States of Denial within the context of the so called "Darwin Industry" operating within a highly pervasive and controlling "corporate" framework. The same thing explains why, unlike I, they failed to "follow the data" on John Loudon.

Veracity regarding the data of how great discoveries are made is important. The history of scientific discovery informs us how scientists conduct their research. It teaches us how to avoid errors, when not to give up and how information of all kinds can be capitalised upon to make further quantum leaps in great thinking. In that regard, it is obvious that we need a veracious history of the discovery of natural selection, which is, arguably, the unifying theory of biology.

To re-phrase the old truism about data analysis of all kinds - "rubbish in - rubbish out." The majority view - whether held by the majority of Germans in Nazi Germany or the majority of scientists about Matthew and Darwin - can be held by idiots. The cases of Landmesser and Matthew teach us that. And that is a great and valuable lesson for mankind. But it may yet be lost on the majority. And to date it appears to be lost on Darwin scholars. To their shame.


References


Alexander, M. (2016a) The Courier. 'English academic says Scots farmer could be true origin of Charles Darwin’s most famous theory.' March 15th. https://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/perth-kinross/120212/english-academic-says-scots-farmer-could-be-true-origin-of-charles-darwins-most-famous-theory/


Alexander, M.(2016b) The Courier. 'Darwin academic accused of ‘poor and lazy research’'. March 16th: https://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/perth-kinross/120564/darwin-academic-accused-of-poor-and-lazy-research/


Alexander, M. (2016c) The Courier. 'Academic accused of ‘weirdly closed mind’ as Perthshire Charles Darwin row continues.' https://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/perth-kinross/120747/academic-accused-of-weirdly-closed-mind-as-perthshire-charles-darwin-row-continues/


Blyth, E (1835) “An Attempt to Classify the «Varieties» of Animals»”, The Magazine of Natural History 1835, vol. 8, no. 1, Parts 1-2;

Blyth, E. (1836), “Observations on the Various Seasonal and Other External Changes Which Regularly Take Place in Birds More Particularly in Those Which Occur in Britain; with Remarks on Their Great Importance in Indicating the True Affinities of Species; and upon the Natural System of Arrangement”, The Magazine of Natural History, vol. 9, pp. 393-409.

Darwin, C (1861). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, 3rd ed. London. John Murray,


de Beer, G. (1962) “The Wilkins Lecture: The Origins of Darwin’s Ideas on Evolution and Natural Selection”, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol. 155, no. 960, pp. 321-338

deGrasse Tyson, N. (2011) Twitter: https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/56010861382336513

Cohen, S. (2001) States of Denial. Cambridge. Polity.

Eiseley, L. (1979) Darwin and the Mysterious Mr X:New Light on the Evolutionists. New York. E. P. Dutton.

Ernst, E. (2015) A Scientist in Wonderland: A Memoir of Searching for Truth and Finding Trouble. Kindle Edition, England Andrews UK.

Frankfurt, H. (2005). On Bullshit. Princeton N.J.. Princeton University Press.


Gould, S. J (1983) Unorthodoxies in the First Formulation of Natural Selection. Evolution, Volume 37. No. 4.July.


Gould, S. J. (2002) The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Harvard. Harvard University Press.


Kuhn, T. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (second edition, enlarged). Chicago. University of Chicago Press


Knapton, S. (2014) Did Charles Darwin 'borrow' the theory of natural

selection? The Telegraph, 28 May. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10859281/Did-Charles-Darwin-borrow-the-theory-of-natural-selection.html

Matthew, P. (1860a) Letter to The Gardeners’ Chronicle, “Nature’s Law of Selection”,

Gardeners’ Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette 7 April 1860, pp. 312-313, http://darwin-online.

org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=A143&viewtype=text&pageseq=1 .

Matthew, P.(1860b), Letter to The Gardeners’ Chronicle, “Nature’s Law of Selection”, The

Gardeners’ Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette 12 May 1860, p. 433, http://tinyurl.com/za7mpyq


Mayr, E, (1982), The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution and Inheritance, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, p. 499.

Sutton, M. (2013) Good Grief! In 1839, A Remarkable Scotsman Appears to have Invented the Peace Corps - Not President Kennedy or any of his Associates.

Dysology and CriminologyThe Blog of Mike Sutton : https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=21581

Sutton, M. (2014) Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s Greatest Secret, Cary, NC. Thinker Books. Thinker Media Inc.

Sutton, M. (2014a) "The hi-tech detection of Darwin’s and Wallace’s possible science fraud: Big data criminology re-writes the history of contested discovery.". Papers of the British Criminology Conference. Vol. 14: 49-64 Panel Paper. pp. 1-16.


Sutton, M. (2015) Hard Facts and Rational Argument. Darwinist Defences Rebutted page. Patrick Matthew.com http://patrickmatthew.com/Darwinist%20Defences%20Examined.html


Sutton, M. (2015a) A Cordial and Gentlemanly Invitation to the Darwinist Assistant Prof. Nathaniel Comfort to Rationally Explain Himself. Dysology and Criminology, the blog of Mike Sutton. Best Thinking. https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=22582

Sutton (2015b) On the First to be Second (F2b2) Hypothesis. Dysology and Criminology: The Blog of Mike Sutton. https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=22763%2c22763

Sutton, M. (2016) On Knowledge Contamination: New Data Challenges Claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Independent Conceptions of Matthew’s Prior-Published Hypothesis. Philosophical Aspects of Origin 2015, vol. 12. http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/images/FAG/2015.t.12/art.05.pdf

Sutton, M. (2016a) On Knowledge Contamination. March 21st. The Patrick Matthew Blogspot: http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/on-knowledge-contamination.html


Sutton,M.(2016b) Errors and Updates. Patrick Matthew.com http://patrickmatthew.com/errata%2C%20errors%20and%20updates.html


Wells, K. D. (1973) The Historical Context of Natural Selection. The Case of Patrick Matthew. Journal of History of Biology. Vol. 6. No. 2. pp. 225-258.
West, D. (2016) The Managerial University: A failed experiment. Demos. http://www.demosproject.net/the-managerial-university-a-failed-experiment/


 
Mike Sutton Identity Verified

About the Author 

Mike Sutton
Dr Mike Sutton is the author of 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret'.

Recent Content by Mike Sutton

It's World Immunisation Week: Go tell the SOB

This week is World Immunisation week (Learn all about it here ). Has anyone explained what this means to the spoiled orange baby (SOB) that the people of America elected to run their country? Because he believes the debunked myth, and spreads it widely, that vaccines cause autism. (see his...

March for Science of the Money Grubbing Hypocrites

Yesterday was April 22nd 2017. On that day scientists marched for science. They marched to protest about the interference of politics in science. They marched, according to some of the leaders of the March for Science movement ( here ): " ... to uphold the common good and for political leaders...

Zombie Horde Academics: Four examples of headshot dogma kills

1. The Spinach, Popeye and Decimal Point Error Myth 2. The Chemistry of Crime Myth 3. The Zombie Cops Myth 4. Darwin's Dual-Immaculate Conception Myth Follow me on Twitter Here Don't be one of the zombie horde: Get your brain Nullius in Verba zombie-proofed at Amazon.com

 
Latest Thinking in Science
corner
corner
 
 
Latest Ebooks