Identity Verified Thinker in Science / Social Sciences / Sociology
Mike Sutton
Mike Sutton
Dr Mike Sutton is the author of 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret'.


This Blog has no active categories.
Posted in Science / Social Sciences / Sociology

Crooks not Schnooks: Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace Committed the World’s Greatest Science Fraud

Feb. 9, 2014 4:11 am

Thinker Media IncUsed only with express written permission

Nullius in Verba

Postscript 29 September 2014. If you found this blog post of interest, then you may wsh to know that details about my book on this topic - which provides a wealth of more detailed information can be found here

Blog post begins:

In 1831 the Scottish laird, botanist, orchardist, farmer, grain dealer and Chartist, named Patrick Matthew. published his discovery of the ‘natural process of selection’ in his book entitled ‘On Naval Timber and Arboriculture’.

Amazingly, 27 years later, in 1858, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace each claimed to have independently discovered the exact same process. Both Darwin and Wallace claimed that they had no prior knowledge of Matthew’s book, prior to the presentation of their two papers to the Linnean Society in 1858, and pre-Origin of Species 1859. To this day Darwinists and other scientists have simply taken their word for it that they were not lying plagiarizers and science swindlers.

In the third edition of the Origin of Species Darwin (1861) wrote:

‘In 1831 Mr. Patrick Matthew published his work on 'Naval Timber and Arboriculture,' in which he gives precisely the same view on the origin of species as that (presently to be alluded to) propounded by Mr. Wallace and myself in the 'Linnean Journal,' and as that enlarged on in the present volume. Unfortunately the view was given by Mr. Matthew very briefly in scattered passages in an Appendix to a work on a different subject, so that it remained unnoticed until Mr. Matthew himself drew attention to it in the 'Gardener's Chronicle,' on April 7th, 1860.’

Nullius in Verba

The seventeenth century Latin motto of the Royal Society, nullius in verba, means ‘on the word of no one’, which informs us that when it comes to claims of fact that scientists should not credulously take somebody’s word for it that something is true.

Contrary to the pervasive Darwinist myth that nobody read it, with hi-tech research methods, I have discovered the hidden books in the library that prove Matthew's 1831 book was read and cited by at least seven naturalists before Darwin and Wallace each replicated the unique ideas within it. Three of those naturalists were in Darwin’s inner circle and one, Prideaux John Selby (1842) - in the very year Darwin wrote his first unpublished essay on natural selection - cited Matthew's book many times in his own book on trees and therein commented on his failure to understand Matthew's unique 'survival of the most circumstance suited' notion of 'power of occupancy' of certain trees.

Selby later edited and published Wallace’s (1855) first paper on organic evolution, which is known today as the famous 'Sarawak Paper'. That paper laid down Wallace's marker in the field of the discovery of natural selection. Moreover, thirteen years before that same famous paper was published, William Jardine, who co-edited Wallace's Sarawak paper with Selby, also had Matthew's book in his hands. And he held onto it for some time, because it was Jardine who purchased it in Scotland for Selby (see: Jackson, 1992).

And so the mythical pristine field of Wallace's claimed independent discovery of natural selection is proven to have been completely and utterly contaminated with prior knowledge by those who both edited and then published his pre-Origin work. If Selby and Jardine had not informed Wallace of Matthew's unique ideas, then this case would surely be the first scientifically discovered event of paranormal activity, because those ideas were replicated for the very first time in Wallace's Sarawak paper.

To explain the importance of the 'Selby Citation Discovery', if Wallace's editors and publishers never told him about Matthew's ideas, if Wallace never perpetrated a deliberate fraud by having full prior-knowledge of those ideas, and if he had no psychic ability to to read the minds of Selby and Jardine, there is only one alternative explanation. Selby and/or Jardine must have written Matthew's unique ideas into Wallace's paper. But even if that had been the case, it is unlikely that it would have been done without Wallace's knowledge and approval. If it was done without Wallace's approval then he really was a schnook and not a crook. But even that conclusion completely refutes the current Darwinian myth that Matthew's discovery played no part in influencing the work of Wallace or Darwin before 1858.

Although the precise details of whatever actually happened may never be known, this unique and brand new discovery is one of many newsworthy bombshells now blasting to smithereens current mythical Darwinist accounts of the origin of Darwin's (1859) Origin of Species.

To add to the seriousness of the impact on the history of science of this discovery, Selby's prior reading and citation of Matthew's book contaminates also Darwin's claim to pristine independent discovery of the unique ideas within it.

Darwin's father was a guest at Selby's country house, as were many important naturalists in Charles Darwin's inner circle, and Charles Darwin sat on several important scientific committees with Selby. Equally incriminatingly, Selby - who was right at the center of the scientific community in the mid-nineteenth century - was a prolific correspondent and friend of Darwin's great friend and corespondent Leonard Jenyns (see: Jackson 1992, p. 124).

And so here we must now see further than the end of Darwin's fallacious pen to the fact that his 154 year old and lame excuse that no one read Matthew's book and it's ideas is exterminated by the hard dis-confirming evidence that Selby did both. Such concrete facts always trump unevidenced rhetoric. 'Selby's Citations' absolutely prove that other naturalists - indeed important and highly influential naturalists, who were closely linked to both Darwin and Wallace - did read Matthew's ideas and it alone debunks the Patrick Matthew Supermyth, which is so beloved by academically besotted Darwinists, such as the famous Richard Dawkins (2010) and also the Head of the Skeptics Society, Michael Shermer (2002), because it has enabled them to dispose fallaciously of the Matthew Problem in the exact way Darwin intended.

Dawkins and Shermer, like every other Darwinist who has written on the "Matthew Problem", failed to apply the scientific principle of nullius in verba to the unevidenced excuses made by their namesake.

'Nullius in Verba: The High-Tech Detection of Charles Darwin's and Alfred Wallace's Great Science Fraud (forthcoming Sutton 2104) uniquely reveals that many more authors read and cited Matthew’s book. The names of those newly discovered naturalists, besides Selby, who actually cited Matthew's book in the literature, are revealed exclusively in this forthcoming book. In the case of one naturalist in particular I have a tremendous surprise in store - so much so the Bank of England might want to retract its £10 notes. Perhaps the Bank of Scotland will put Patrick Matthew on the back of its own currency?

Were Darwin and Wallace Schnooks or Crooks?


PatrickMathew.comPublic Domain

Patrick Matthew. The True Discoverer of the 'Natural Process of Selection'

Ignoring for now my unique new discovery of other naturalists who Darwin knew well, who read Matthew’s book and then cited it in the literature, it is already known - but studiously ignored by Darwinists - that the botanist-naturalist, agriculturalist, and most famous Victorian garden designer John Loudon, reviewed Matthew's book and pointedly mentioned the originality of his hypothesis ' the natural process of selection' as being on the very subject that he referred to as the origin of species, He wrote (Loudon 1832): 'One of the subjects discussed in this appendix is the puzzling one, of the origin of species and varieties...'



The site of Rome Farm is now the parklands of Scone Palace - from where the English famously stole the Stone of Scone.

When Matthew was just fifteen years of age, Loudon drew the plans for landscaping what are now the parklands of Scone Palace, which neighbored Matthew's birthplace of Rome Farm. It seems likely they would have met. Moreover, Loudon was a friend of William Hooker - the Director of the Royal Botanical Garden's at Kew. Hooker's own book was reviewed in the same edition of the journal that reviewed Matthew's, and his friend John Lindley's was reviewed directly above the review of Matthew;s book. The economic botanist Lindley then went on to write two articles on naval timber. Most importantly in this story, William Hooker was also the father of Darwin’s best friend and botanical mentor Joseph Hooker. And William Hooker was also a friend of Darwin.

Loudon, the most influential of all Victorian Gardeners, wrote more than six million words in his lifetime, including proposals for the establishment of Kew Gardens for the ultimate benefit his friend William Hooker.

Oddly, no one appears to have made anything of these connections before now. Presumably because 'expert' Darwinists would have us believe that Loudon probably never discussed Matthew' s unique ideas with his great friend William Hooker and that William Hooker probably never discussed them with his botanist son - or if he did that Joseph must have kept them secret from his best friend Darwin. And we are further supposed to believe that neither Hooker nor Lindley read the review of Matthew's book, even though they were economic botanists and, incidentally - contrary to Darwinist myth-making about Matthew's book being on an obscure and irrelevant topic - naval timber and arboriculture were key topics in their field in 1832, and even though Lindley and Loudon were fascinated by the problem of species. For example, according to Millhauser (1959, p.72):

‘Four academic botanists – E.M. Fries, James E. Smith, J.C Loudon, and John Lindley – subscribed about 1828, to the opinion that certain plant species might, under environmental stimulus, metamorphose into one another.’.

Darwinists, it seems, must further expect us to believe also that William never discussed Matthew's hypothesis directly with Darwin either, not even when Darwin visited his house at Kew; even though they all discussed and later corresponded at length on the subject of crab apple trees - a major topic of Matthew's 1831 book. Furthermore, there is also the inconvenient fact that Wallace weirdly enters this social scene via Matthew's 1831 book ten years prior to 1858. This time as a friend, correspondent and supplier of specimens to William Hooker, who kindly wrote him letters of introduction and reference. Of course coincidences happen, except in green ink conspiracy theories. But are these close social and professional connections between Matthew, Darwin and Wallace merely coincidental? How could we objectively tell? When does a multitude of such possible coincidence become simply too much to be probable coincidence?

Darwin was a prolific liar

My forthcoming book reveals five newly discovered lies that Darwin told in order to achieve primacy over Matthew, The sixth lie is known but its existence is yet another uncomfortable fact that is studiously ignored by Darwinists. This sixth lie is Darwin's (1860) claim that no one was aware of Matthew's unique ideas pre-Origin. That is an outright lie because Matthew (1860) informed Darwin in the press that his book had been reviewed in several journals including the review by Loudon (1832). On top of which, in his reply to Darwin's (1860) letter of initial capitulation and apology, Matthew (1860b) further informed Darwin that a natural scientist, who was a university professor, was well aware of the unique ideas in the book but feared to teach Matthew's heresy. And yet Darwin (1861) deliberately and brazenly lied in the third edition of the Origin by claiming that Matthew's ideas had gone unnoticed.



Gourdiehill in the Carse of Gowrie, Scotland, the seat of Patrick Matthew esquire - the originator of the theory of natural slection

My forthcoming book

Nullius in Verba, which is currently under review by ThinkerBooks, presents an absolute multitude of similar, and in some cases even more serious, highly incriminating close social connections between Darwin, Wallace and those naturalists I uniquely discovered to have actually cited Matthew's 1831 book in the published literature.

A bombshell for the history of scientific discovery


(c) Darwin Correspondence ProjectAttribution

From Darwin's Zoonomia notebook of 1837-1838

The scientist Carl Sagan is claimed to have said that remarkable claims require remarkable evidence.

There is zero remarkable evidence to support Darwin's and Wallace's remarkable claims to have each independently of Matthew, and independently of one another, discovered the natural process of selection 28 years after Matthew (1831) prominently published it with major Edinburgh and London publishers - when naturalists whom they both knew very well had both read and then cited Matthew's prior discovery in the literature. However, the new remarkable evidence of whom Darwin and Wallace knew who read and actually cited Matthew's book, Darwin's self-serving fallacy spreading, lies, and Darwin's and Wallace's unique plagiarism of Matthew's unique terms, ideas, examples and explanatory concepts does remarkably prove beyond all reasonable doubt that both Darwin and Wallace committed the greatest science fraud ever detected when they remarkably claimed to have had no prior knowledge of Matthew's 1831 book.

By way of just one further preview example, among many similar instances of incriminating evidence weirdly ignored by Darwinists, is that the very first thing Darwin wrote on organic evolution in his private notebook of 1837 was on the subject of Matthew's area of expertise. Namely apple trees. Moreover, Darwin's own notebooks also record, in his own hand, that he owned at least five books that cite Matthews 1831 book.


(c) Mike Sutton 2014Used only with express written permission

Darwin and Wallace aped Matthew's discovery and pretended it was their own,

Without Matthew, neither Darwin nor Wallace would have written a word worth reading on the subject of organic evolution. Without Matthew the discovery of natural selection might not have been made until the second quarter of the 20th century, perhaps later. Without Matthew there would not today be a theory called natural selection. We would probably refer to it by the pre-Matthew title of 'The Development Theory', and would understand it from an entirely different explanatory perspective.

The time for celebrating Darwin and Wallace is now at an end.

A Trumpet from the Rooftops

Alfred Wallace (1871), Richard Dawkins (2010), and other Darwinists have successfully promoted the ludicrously unethical idea that scientific priority is dependent upon distasteful self-promotion by incompetent - or else fraudulent - replicators, rather than prior publication by first discoverers. As the first discoverer of the new evidence that proves Darwin and Wallace committed the World's greatest science fraud, I wish this blog post and any future shameless hawking of Darwin's and Wallace's great science fraud to be taken as multiple examples of trumpeting the importance of my discovery from the rooftops. Hopefully, such unseemly and excited trumpeting will suffice as sufficient evidence that I do fully comprehend the significance of what I have uniquely discovered and published.

A note on my unique discoveries and the threat of plagiarism


Please share this and trumpet it from the rooftopsPublic Domain

Alfred Russel Wallace.Fraud discovered by Dr Mike Sutton (criminologist)


Tweet from the RooftopsPublic Domain

Tweet this from the Rooftops to Richard Dawkins: Darwin's Great Science Fraud was First Proven by Dr Mike Sutton 'Solver of the origin of the Origin of Species'.

At the time of writing, I can attest that the Wikipedia page on Matthew makes absolutely no mention of Darwin's lies or of Loudon, Selby or any other writer who cited Matthew's work pre-Origin. In fact, no writer before now has commented upon the significance of the fact that Selby (editor of Wallace's Sarawak paper and multiple committee associate of Darwin) read and cited Matthew's (1831) book and ideas, and that Jardine (co-editor of Wallace's Sarawak paper) had the book in his possession. Jackson (1992), who found the information in Selby's correspondence, merely mentions it in passing in her book - with no reference at all to Darwin, Wallace or plagiarism. However, that is something that is likely to change without reference to this blog post as the source of the new discovery. Because senior Wikipedia editors have this snakelike habit of plagiarizing my unique discoveries from the Best Thinking site and then refusing to cite me as the source. So remember you read it here first that Darwin and Wallace more likely than not read Matthew first. Darn plagiarisers!


All Rights ReservedUsed only with express written permission

Follow Mike on Twitter

Keep abreast of this story by following me on twitter,

POSTSCRIPT 17th February 2014

We would expect the mythical Semmelweis reflex to kick in now that some of the newly discovered mythbusting facts about who really did read and cite both Matthew's book and its unique ideas have been published.

Scientists, particularly psychologists, wishing to study "live" Darwinists fallaciously denying that such facts have been discovered by me, and their further desperate denials that they are new discoveries, might note some rather amusing early Semmelweis reflex sub-types that we can identify so far. For example:


@Criminotweet you have no 'newly discovered facts'. You're just desperate to promote your overwrought writing. Life must be tough.

— David Jones (@metaburbia) February 16, 2014

How to cite this blog post: Sutton, M. (2014) Crooks not Schnooks: Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace Committed the World’s Greatest Science Fraud. Criminology, the blog of Mike Sutton. Best February 9th 2014.

Please NOTE If you found this blog of interest, you might like the one that follows it, which reveals the importance of some of these ideas and discoveries when considered alongside Richard Dawkins' writing, and most ironic replication of writing, about selfish replicators. Click: Here to read that next blog on this topic.

To discover all seven naturalists who cited Matthew's 1831 book, and the 100% proven influence of three of those seven on Darwin and Wallace click here to read the article "Internet Dating With Darwin".

To find out more about my book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret (Sutton 2014). Please click here


Darwin, C. R. (1861) On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. (Third Edition) London. John Murray.

Dawkins, R. (2010). Darwin’s Five Bridges: The Way to Natural Selection. In Bryson, B. (ed.) Seeing Further: The Story of Science and the Royal Society. London Harper Collins.

Jackson, C. E. (1992) Prideaux John Selby: A Gentleman Naturalist. Northumberland. Spredden Press.[2]

Loudon, J. C. (1832)[1] Matthew Patrick On Naval Timber and Arboriculture with Critical Notes on Authors who have recently treated the Subject of Planting. Gardener’s Magazine. Vol. VIII. p.703.

Matthew, P. (1831) On Naval Timber and Arboriculture; With a critical note on authors who have recently treated the subject of planting. Edinburgh. Adam Black. London: Longman and co.

Matthew, P. (1860) Letter to the Gardeners Chronicle. Nature's law of selection. Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette (7 April). pp. 312-13.

Matthew, P. (1860b) Letter to the Gardeners Chronicle. Nature's law of selection. Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette (12 May) p. 433.

Millhauser, M. (1959) Just Before Darwin: Robert Chambers and the Vestiges. Middletown Connecticut. Wesleyan University Press.[3]

Selby, P. J. (1842) A history of British forest-trees: indigenous and introduced. London. Van Voorst.

Shermer, M. (2002) In Darwin's Shadow: The Life and Science of Alfred Russel Wallace: A Biographical Study on the Psychology of History. Oxford. Oxford University Press.

Wallace, A. R. (1855) On the law which has regulated the introduction of new species. The Annals and Magazine of Natural History. Series 2. 16. pp. 184-196.

Wallace, A. R. (1871) Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection. A Series of Essays. New York. Macmillan and Co.

[1] Although the actual review was anonymous, in his 1860 letter in the Gardener’s Chronicle, Matthew wrote that it was penned by Loudon, who was the magazine’s Editor.

[2] I wrote a book review of Jackson's book on Amazon.Here

[3] I wrote a review of Millhauser's book: Here

Thinker's Post
Mike Sutton
February 23, 2014 at 2:42 am
Furthermore on the subject of plagiarism

If you found this blog of interest, I think you might like the one that follows it, which reveals the importance of some of these ideas and discoveries when they are considered alongside Richard Dawkins' writing, and most ironic replication of writing, about selfish replicators.

Please click: Here to read the next blog on this topic.

I Sawyer
February 19, 2014 at 9:44 am
Don't forget about Erasmus Darwin

Don't forget about Erasmus Darwin, he wrote a book with very much the same ideas as Charles Darwin. Erasmus was the grandfather of Charles. It was reported that Charles read his granfather's book and perhaps the idea was instilled in him to continue his grandfather's work. Also Galston, the "father of eugenics" was his either half brother or his first cousin.

Peter Singer and Dawkins in a discussion on u tube Peter Singer said, in essence, because of Dalton, people realized they did not need God any longer.

As I recall, he knew that his theory would be unpopular.

I am over my head on this list but I always felt that it was his grandfather who influenced Charles Darwin and he may have been the link to Matthew since he and his grandfather had very similar interests. In one of Erasmus' poems he speaks of life spring from the sea and was reported to have a clam shell painted or engraved on his carriage but removed it.

Thinker's Post
Mike Sutton
February 22, 2014 at 4:37 am

Hi - I Sawyer - I never Forgot him it's just that Erasmus is not really very Relevant to the Story of Charles Darwin's and Alfred Wallace's Science Fraud. Let me Explain:

Arguably, the first thing of importance in science is to know how to tell one thing from another. And so it is important to know where the difference lies between what (a) influenced Darwin to be interested in the problem of species and (b) where he found the answer to that problem. Erasmus Darwin was intrigued by the problem of species. Namely, why there was extinction of past species and emergence of new ones - differently located on the planet. He wrote a famous and popular poem on the subject, but Erasmus had no new answers to the problem of how evolution occurred. Speculation that complex organisms had their origins in simpler ones had been around since the time of the Ancient Greeks. Did Erasmus influence Darwin's interest? Who knows - but it seems more likely than not. But, aside from that unrelated issue, and most importantly, where did Darwin find his solution to the problem of species? How did Darwin come to know the "process" by which evolution occurs?

I prove beyond all reasonable doubt that he got the answer from Matthew - not only because a unique plagiarism check of Darwin's pre-Origin published and unpublished work compared to Matthew's book (never before been conducted) proves it but also because I have uniquely discovered - contrary to the Darwinian myth industry - that Darwin knew personally three major naturalists who not only read Matthew's book pre-Origin - but cited it in the literature pre-Origin.

We can tell Matthew's work apart from those writers who came before him. And we can tell also the immense degree of and number of similarities between Matthew's work and that of Darwin and Wallace.

Taking account of Erasmus (more on him later) Wells, Blyth (he actually came after Matthew), Lamarck and Buffon - Matthew is the only one who originated the theory of natural selection. Matthew is head and shoulders above his precursors. And Matthew knew it, which is why he proclaimed himself "solver of the problem of species" (so much for Richard Dawkins' and Alfred Wallace's ludicrously transparent self-serving mythmongery that Matthew did not comprehend what he discovered).

My forthcoming book reveals previously undiscovered publications and correspondence that shows just how hard Matthew fought to be recognized. It reveals also the dreadfully underhand and unethical practices of Darwin's closest friends in keeping Matthew buried in obscurity.

Matthew’s work was unique in that he discovered the process by which organic evolution occurs. He uniquely named it “the natural process of selection”. Matthew uniquely explained organic evolution by way of hypothesizing (with real examples from nature) how genetic variation within varieties and within distinct species throws up various random traits - some of which are “most circumstance suited” . He showed how these then interact with ecology, other new species and varieties, and species "arrival events", slow geological change and catastrophe events, and power of ecological occupancy to eventually bring about - through the competitive struggle for life - the divergence of new "successful" species (winners) from common ancestors. He applied this principle of natural selection to plants, animals and humans. He explained it by way of using artificial selection (humans deliberate breeding of certain desirable traits into animals and plants) to explain how the process operates in nature. And he hypothesized that it explained all species, the fossil record and species extinction. He not only handed God his redundancy papers he provided the theory for why God was redundant. Matthew even went so far as to invite other naturalists to go and gather evidence to prove his hypothesis, which is exactly what Darwin spent 28 years doing pre-Origin!

Pre-Matthew the “process” had never been discovered or explained. Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace plagiarised the discovery of (1) the process, (2) its unique name and (3) the key explanatory examples from Matthew.

Ideas pre- Matthew

Pre-Matthew the “development theory” had been around for millennia. What had not been discovered (pre-Matthew) was the process of natural selection.

Historians demonstrate that we can get back further than Lamarck (1809) and Erasmus Darwin (1794) to the earliest germ of dangerous heretical ideas that evolution, rather than divine design, might be an explanation for species. Aside from her outrageous falsehood about Matthew handing over the mantle for the discovery of natural selection to Darwin, I thoroughly recommend Stott’s (2012) ‘Darwin’s Ghost’s for a superb read on this very interesting topic. On the story of Matthew, Darwin and Wallace Stott clearly failed to look at any the primary sources and so has been misled by Darwinist mythmongery, which led her to make up the daft story that Matthew handed the crown of discovery to Darwin. Matthew's many letters to the press, interview's with other naturalists - and his other published work - prove he fought (unsuccessfully) for recognition for his discovery till the day he died.

Good scholars always go to primary sources. My forthcoming book relies - purely - upon primary sources, including a wealth of new ones that I discovered with hi-tech research methods.

Darwin was, of course, aware of some of the pre-Matthew history. One book that we know, from his ‘books read notebook’, Darwin read is Agricola’s (1721) treatise, which cites More’s (1653) necessarily incredibly cryptic hint that geology, climate and even species might actually not be created all at once:

‘So soon as they were made…that he does not take upon him to define the Time wherein God made the Heavens and the Earth, for he might do it at once, by his absolute Omnipotency; or he might, when he had created all Substance, as well material as immaterial, let them act one upon the other, so, and in such Periods of Time, as the Nature of the Production of the Things them selves requir’d.’

Michael I Finesilver
February 17, 2014 at 5:04 am
Creation v. Evolution: the Threshold perspective


Thanks for taking the trouble to clearly set out your criteria for explanations, as proposed by David Deutsch whose thinking I have encountered before. First, in response to your stated assumption, I'll simply say that challenging the current orthodoxy of materialistic science is not in itself an aim of mine. It's just a necessary part of clearing the path of obstructions in order to progress towards a more comprehensive and balanced way of understanding this world and our roles in it, as individuals and collectively.

The root of the word 'science' means knowing, in its broad sense. So, any discipline proclaiming itself to be a science that cannot or will not handle consciousness and quality without trying to reduce them down to quantities of artificially standardised 'building blocks', physical or abstract, remains stunted and incomplete, however smart the mathematics used. As I recall, Deutsch, in his TED talk, explicitly limits his proposals concerning the validity of explanations and truth to the physical world.

What exactly is my hypothesis?, you ask. I don't normally think in such terms, but I suppose the nearest thing would be the understanding, summarised in Notes from the Threshold*, that three simple universal principles govern how the whole cosmos in all its complexity functions. Out of which arises the conclusion that there is coherent order to be found 'behind' this superficially complicated and apparently 'random', unpredictable world.

None of the three is original or unfamiliar in itself – it's the combination that generates their power. Yet an incoherent and thus confusing worldview is currently being promoted worldwide in orthodox science education, as well as in other disciplines.

The same three axiomatic principles have also enabled certain historically unresolvable mathematical 'problems' to be resolved without the need for any fancy mathematics. Through the psychologically based Threshold approach, longstanding enigmas and conundrums are revealed to be the result of flaws, gaps and inconsistencies in the thinking of the cultures in which various brilliant mathematical minds lived and worked.

The Greek word kosmos means 'order'. So, why knowledge of the underlying/overriding coherence of the cosmos, a powerful combination of overview and insight, remains systematically ignored in education systems and in the mass media raises many questions about power, authority and control which go way beyond the scope of this discussion.

A simple analogy of the way the Threshold knowledge came to my awareness as a complete system would be the experience of appreciating stereograms, which in a small way can provide a minor 'revelation' experience. If you're able to look at them in a certain relaxed, non-focussed, non-analytical way, you see what first appears as a flat, two-dimensional, printed mass of dots, blobs and clusters suddenly become a clear 3D image of something recognisable and meaningful – a pattern which was not apparent before, despite the fact that nothing changed in the printed picture. Once again, it's all about consciousness.

So, as a means of explaining this or that, the Threshold perspective, being all-inclusive, doesn't require any 'variations', in Deutsch's sense – only elaborations in order to apply the principles to particular situations. Any imagined 'disconfirmation' would probably appear to be such because it's based on a limited set of criteria within a closed logical system, reflecting one particular belief system among others – such as the ongoing 'science versus religion' dispute over creation and evolution. Gödel, in the 1930s, highlighted this kind of limitation with regard to the conventional number system in mathematics.

Finally, the Threshold perspective could be considered by some, who think a certain way, to be a kind of 'theory of everything', but that's of no particular interest to me. I seem to be like a messenger or seed scatterer, simply making this powerful knowledge freely available, online and wherever else it might find receptive minds. I'm not seeking personal fame, wealth or worldly status. So, if this all sounds too simple to be true, people can either ignore it or test drive it over a period of time – hopefully with integrity, honesty and an open mind.

Notes from the Threshold and Threshold Science: free to download from


Michael I Finesilver
February 14, 2014 at 6:34 am
Further to the Creation v. Evolution squabble

To Mike Sutton,

If your detective work has exposed another fraudulent 'I was first' claim in the less than glorious history of materialistic science, then all credit to you. Here it's the claims of Darwin and Wallace to being first with the concept of natural selection in evolutionary theory. And similarly, credit for highlighting the practice of self-promotion in asserting such claims, while also staying safely within the bounds of the orthodox science establishment. Historical records and references can be amended, but how quickly or if at all is another question.

That whole issue, however, does not touch upon or affect the core essence of the Threshold perspective on the broader subject of creation and evolution etc. Questioning the authenticity of rival claims to being the first proponent of the idea of natural selection on Earth is of a different order from realising that three simple universal principles govern the functioning of the whole, all-inclusive cosmos in all its complexity.

The Threshold perspective, as outlined in Notes from the Threshold*, shows up the limitations of the 'physical-material only' belief system – still being promoted as the only true 'science'. One example is the scientists' confused attempts to account systematically for the whole range of living forms, past and present, on Earth. For it has become a dogmatic belief system that ignores, omits or denies the crucial pre-physical phase of the story. That is, the prior, pre-physical involution of universal consciousness into physical matter.

There is a useful diagram in both Threshold Science and Notes from the Threshold that illustrates a new way of understanding the whole process of Involution/Evolution, but it can't be uploaded here.

Thus there's still a widespread unquestioning compliance among scientists and others with the dilemma epitomised in their so-called 'hard question'. This asks how a lump of flesh, ie the physical brain in the skull, might somehow generate the strictly non-physical phenomenon known as consciousness, whether in organisms or as a universal essence.

Without consciousness first, there could be no discipline called science. It's also known that while the body's physical cells regularly die and are replaced, consciousness continues. Threshold science proposes that just three simple, fundamental, universal principles govern the functioning and origin of the whole cosmos and all that it comprises. This shift in perspective brings a whole, all-inclusive overview and many new insights into previously perplexing 'problems' of science. Perhaps a start would be to misquote Mr Spock from Star Trek and state that: 'This is science, Jim, but not as we've known it...'.

Threshold Science does accommodate the basic assumption of materialistic science that 'all is energy'. However, it does this by explaining how primal potential energy is essentially the dynamic produced by universal consciousness focussing within itself and establishing a focal point... which then generates a pulsating pre-physical sphere, formed by the interaction of polar opposite forces of expanding levity and contracting gravity... which create a series of concentric spherical standing waves... which form resonant cavities... which result in increasing density towards the centre through an amassing of this energy... which results in physical matter. Apologies for this drastically compressed summary.

Perhaps Antwuan Malone, given his insightful article about the implications arising from a particular 'creation and evolution' debate, may find some resonance with the all-embracing and penetrating Threshold perspective, even though it's not at all a religious approach and proposes no superhuman being or beings separate from humankind. Mike Sutton too?

*Notes from the Thresholdand Threshold Science: free to download from

Thinker's Post
Mike Sutton
February 14, 2014 at 9:46 am

Hi Michael

Many thanks for the comment. The first paragraph of your comment is easy for me to understand. And by way of reply to that: it will be most fascinating for scientists to to see how Darwinists engage with the wealth of new data that totally debunks the Darwinist myth - self-servingly started by Darwin - that no naturalist read Matthew's ideas.

The rest of your comment clearly relates to your book and your own original views on how you perceive limitations regarding current "knowledge," methods, and acceptable parameters of interest in natural science..

As a social scientist, specializing in criminology, with an interest in new ways to detect fraud and establish innocence or guilt in the field of science fraud I'm not really qualified to comment upon that area of your comment. Perhaps others can do so better than I?

Where I do dare to tread in that area of your comment - while personally I am not concerned with challenging current orthodoxy of what the parameters of science is or should be - from what I've read of the abstract of your work that is exactly your aim. In trying (initially at least) to decide whether you might be on to something worth studying, I would adopt Deutsch's approach to understand what is a good explanation. And so I would begin by asking you about your unique ideas: (1) What exactly is your hypothesis? (2) is it disconfirmable by evidence (3) if disconfirmatory evidence is found to refute it, is it easy to then vary your hypothesis? Because in orthodox science (to which I subscribe) good explanations for science problems are very simply (a) either right or wrong (disconfirmable) (b) and that is why they are hard to vary. See David Deutsch on TED video

The same arguments apply for my unique discovery that Darwin and Wallace committed science fraud by plagiarizing Matthew. If someone else discovers new valid evidence that in fact Darwin and Wallace genuinely wrote to each other genuinely asking how in the name of hell they never heard of Matthew's views, or if it can be proven somehow that there was a conspiracy among their friends and associates - who had read and cited Matthew's work - to keep all knowledge of it from them, then my explanation for the science problem of Darwin's and Wallace's amazing mutually independent replication of Matthew's unique prior discovery would be refuted. Until then science fraud is now the best explanation we have.


Victor Kowalenko
February 13, 2014 at 12:32 am
Re: Priority vs Originality

Hi Mike,

I have read your interesting article concerning the Darwin/Wallace/Matthew saga, but I do not know whether it is the world's greatest science fraud. I was wondering if you have looked into the Newton/Leibniz saga about differential calculus. It appears that Leibniz was the first to publish his tract on the subject and Newton came later. This erupted into a major fight where Leibniz took the matter to the Royal Society--a major blunder. Newton being highly connected with the the members there got them to pronounce in favour of himself because although he did not publish till later, he claimed he had the ideas on differential calculus earlier than Leibniz. Such an argument would be considered "rubbish" today, but it remains the reason why he is credited with the discovery and not Leibniz, who died a "broken man". The irony is that it is Leibniz's notation that is used by mathematicians today, not Newton's. However, it wouldn't surprise me in the least that someone like Gregory may have preceded both of them.

Thinker's Post
Mike Sutton
February 13, 2014 at 3:55 pm

Hi Victor

I've heard of it but not studied the detail. My first question would be to ask whether Newton claimed not to have read or heard of Leibniz's work before publishing his own? I'm guessing that is what he claimed. And then my second question would be to ask "Did Newton know of anyone who had read it?"

Let's assume Newton was a plagiarizer (for arguments sake only at this point), I think a lot of scientists would claim that Natural Selection is among the most important (in the top 3) scientific discoveries of all time. And given that its called Darwinism when the fact of the matter is that its actually Matthewism would for me rank it above the differential calculus debacle you describe. But that's only my opinion.

Victor - very many thanks for raising this issue. Is there a good book or article on the topic of Leibniz and Newton that you can recommend I start with to get up to speed on that story?

Victor Kowalenko
February 13, 2014 at 9:23 pm

Hi Mike,

1. I don't think Newton was a plagiarist. I think that both discovered differential calculus independently of one another although they may have influenced each other. What this means is that the development of a fully-fledged approach may take years and along the way one may become exposed to views and ideas of others, which may influence one's final approach. I am currently working on divergent series and it would be fair to say that there has been much activity on the topic over the last three centuries, but in reality not much progress. Over the journey I have been exposed to many approaches, most of which I have rejected. In fact, the book that I have gained the most out of is R.B. Dingle's 1973 book on asymptotic expansions.This book that has influenced me more than anything, but still my ideas go further than anything Dingle produced in his book, although he might even the same ideas as I do. We'll never know as he has not published anything since. The book is hardly used by anybody except for Dingle's famous student Sir Michael Berry and myself. Yet Berry and I have completely different approaches on the subject of asymptotic expansions/divergent series. In fact, they clash so much that Berry and his followers (which is a major group within the asymptotics community) try to put down my work and even attempt to stop it from being unpublished, sometimes with lies. I noticed that Dawkins belittles Matthew for publishing in some minor outlet rather than with the Royal Society. Matthew probably did so because he may have felt that they would have rejected the work. I myself publish in mid-tier journals because when I go to the more prestigious journals that Dawkins is talking about I get rejected immediately by the editors without the manuscript being sent to a referee. I have lost sometimes more than a year before getting a work published. On this topic Bednorz and Mueller, who won the Nobel Prize for high temperature superconductivity, chose a minor Swiss journal for their work because they feared that if they submitted it to Physical Review Letters, the editors would have sat on it, which would have given others time to claim the discovery.This does happen.

2. Where the situation is unfair is that all the credit is given to Newton, while Leibniz is forgotten despite the fact that he published his material first and his notation is used today. They should both be given equal credit or by the convention of today, the one who published the first major article on the subject regardless of whether he was exposed to another's ideas on the subject. It doesn't really matter whether you have taken twenty years or five minutes to develop a theory. It is the published work that counts provided it holds after years of scrutiny. Gregory Perelman, who won the Fields Medal for the Poincare conjecture did not publish his matetrial in a recognised journal because I think he feared that it would be rejected since he was not well-known. So he dumped it on the arxiv, whereupon it was verified by independent groups. One of these groups situated in China worked through his solution and tried to claim credit for solving the problem, but were found to be frauds. I know this feeling too. I had a major work rejected by a dozen prestigious journals, one of which invited me to submit. So in order for someone not to claim priority, I put the material on the arxiv. I was fortunate to do so as there appeared an article a few months later claiming to have discovered the method. This paper sketched out the method while my arxiv paper provided a general theory behind the method. Worse still, the new article used the same example that I used in a published paper a few years ago. Of course, the paper did not reference my material, including the first paper to use the method published back in 1994. I wrote to the authors about this, but they never responded. As a prominent astrophysicist told me once, the most powerful weapon against novel, radical views being proposed by others outside the status quo is to ignore them. That is clearly what Darwin and his disciples did to Matthew. It worked effectively since Dawkins more than century later is still singing Darwin's praises.

3. I do not have a reference but I think you can type in the Newton-Leibniz controversy on Wikipedia to get a start on the issue. You will find most defend Newton similar to Dawkins' defence of Darwin.

4. On the issue of differential calculus, it underpins pure science and engineering. The world we live in just would hardly be the same without its discovery.But again, that's an opinion.

5. One issue that strikes me is: Dawkins states that Matthew seems to have come up with the idea as a matter of fact rather than laboured at the idea over the years as Darwin did. There is a test called the Meyer-Briggs test, which can explain this conundrum. It appears that most scientists fall into the category of INTJ, where J represents those using judgement. Most architects are found to be INTP, where P stands for using perception rather than judgement. When I did the test with my colleagues from the Department of Defence many years ago, it did turn out that the majority were INTJ's, but I turned out to an INTP (evidently Ludwig van Beethoven was one too). I thought about this a while and it perhaps explains why I work differently from my colleagues. I tend to use perception more than judgement. I suspect Matthew was the same, while Darwin was very judgemental.

Thinker's Post
Mike Sutton
February 14, 2014 at 9:06 am

Hi Victor

I did a little reading around the story of Leibniz and Newton and - at least from what I can gather - it seems that both had collaborated and that there is some strong evidence (private copying notes apparently taken by Leibniz) that he had sight one of Newton's unpublished papers in order to develop his own work .It seems, therefore, that Leibniz was more likely than not up to no good - but I can't be sure about that without going to primary sources and many are likely to be in Latin I suppose. It's unlikely to be anything like as easy to investigate as Darwin's and Wallace's fraud until Google gets its search engine to (a) better read older fonts and handwriting and (b) better translate Latin simultaneously. Perhaps 10 years from now - who knows.

Anyway my main point of reply is that the sort of case you have brought to the debate is exactly the same sort that supports Michael Shermer's (2002) argument, which he tries to deploy to dismiss any claim that Matthew might have to full priority of Darwin and Wallace. Shermer (2002) claims that scientific discovery is "never a zero sum game" and that every great discoverer is in some way influenced by others who came before. In the case of Leibniz and Newton that argument seems to hold up - since both had a history of mutual prior collaboration. But in the story of Darwin, Wallace and Matthew Darwin outrightly said that he had no prior knowledge of Matthew's discovery. Wallace actually kept silent on that question. But Wallace's silence implies he wished others to believe he had no prior knowledge (fraud by omission).

Shermer's argument in the case of dealing with the Matthew Problem is in fact what we might decide to call "flim-flam reasoning" because Darwin and Wallace both effectively claimed it WAS a zero sum game. And that is what makes their fraud so fantastically huge. What on Earth the Darwinist Head of the Skeptics Society is up to in deploying such arguably flim flam reasoning is anyone's guess. I have my own guess and if I am right I would not call him a true skeptic at all.


Shermer, M. (2002) In Darwin's Shadow: The Life and Science of Alfred Russel Wallace: A Biographical Study on the Psychology of History. Oxford. Oxford University Press.

Author's Favorite
Bob Butler
February 9, 2014 at 10:32 am
Discovery & Understanding

Thanks Dennis for adding this video to the discussion.

Dawkins clearly describes the role of Matthews in the discovery of natural selection. Then, it is fascinating to watch Dawkins methodically build the case for what may be another agenda in his presentation... that you must understand the importance of the discovery to be given credit for the discovery. This was the same argument used to defend Watson & Crick regarding Franklin in the discovery of DNA.

It seems "discovery" is a more binary, absolute process... a definable point in time... when it became known and documented. Whilst "understanding" is a more magnitude and direction, social consensus-based process.

An interesting implication is that by requiring understanding as a component of discovery, one must now consider the degree of understanding (threshold bias) and ability to articulate what is being understood (articulation bias) as factors in claims of discovery. This potentially creates an advantage to those from favored scientific societies, who are articulate and skilled at public relations and career advancement... like Dawkins.

Thinker's Post
Mike Sutton
February 9, 2014 at 10:56 am

Hi Bob

You are right. And the 19th century conventions and rules of both the Royal Society and the British Association for the Advancement of Science greatly facilitated Darwin and Wallace to perpetrate their fraud. I have a chapter on that topic in the book. They even platform blocked Matthew at a conference.

Furthermore, I would like to add that the history of scientific discovery has many examples of precursory influence not being a zero-sum game. What is different in the story of Matthew, Darwin and Wallace is that Darwin and Wallace claimed it was a zero sum game because they claimed no prior-knowledge of Matthew's book.

Other, honest scientists have admitted the influence of originators - where those originators did not trumpet their discovery from the rooftops. Take, for example, the case of Howard Florey and Ernst Chain. Both of these scientists discovered that Alexander Fleming wrote one comment on his discovery of penicillin and wrote no more on it. He merely though it might be worth someone else's while to look at. Yet Florey and Chain admitted it was that one obscure paper that was their major influence, even though it was 12 years after Fleming's discovery that Florey and Chain did something worthwhile with Fleming's passing comment.

Matthew did far more with his discovery than Fleming.

Dawkins, who claims to have read Matthew's 1831 book, weirdly seems to have read no more than its appendix. Because he merely apes Darwin's Appendix Myth. In reality Matthew used the theme of natural selection throughout his 1831 book. And the main body of that book contains much of the work that Darwin and Wallace directly plagiarized. Moreover, Matthew did take his natural selection ideas forward in his 1839 book 'Emigration Fields' - another fact conveniently ignored by Dawkins.

I see Dawkins dwells on Gregor Mendel's discovery - but to make a different argument. In so doing Dawkins fails to mention the relevant fact that Mendel was long dead before anyone understood what he discovered! Funny then that Dawkins does not make the same 'made for Matthew denial' argument that Mendel needed to trumpet his discovery from the rooftops if he was to be recognized as an immortal great scientist. Dawkins is clearly engaging in the well known art of dysological selective evidence presentation that is so favored by pseudo-scholars.

Had Darwin and Wallace been honest and done the same, right, thing as Florey and Chain, then both would be mere footnotes in the history of science. Which is as it should be. Oh yes and a statue of Matthew (not Darwin) would be in the Natural History museum, his face would be on the back of the £10 note (not Darwin's) and on the postage stamp celebrating the Royal Society (not Wallace's).

Dennis Lendrem
February 11, 2014 at 6:18 am

Indeed! Who would have thought "discovery" could be such a grey area?

Simple priority is not enough to earn a thinker a place in the history of science: one has to develop the idea and convince others of its value to make a real contribution.
- Peter Bowler

Thinker's Post
Mike Sutton
February 11, 2014 at 6:26 am

Hi Dennis

Actually the "grey area" treatment is only ever given to Matthew by Darwinists such as Bowler and Dawkins. Otherwise Gregor Mendel and Alexander Fleming would not be immortal great thinkers of science. I wonder, have you read the scientific rules on priority as first codified by Hugh Strickland for the British Association for Advancement of Science? What about Robert Merton on the rules of priority in science? There is no grey area!

Did you know Darwin lobbied but failed to have Strickland's rules changed so that better known naturalists such as Darwin could have priority over lesser known originators such as Matthew?

Moreover, besides all that, the main point I am making is that Darwin and Wallace lied when they claimed they had no prior-knowledge of Matthew's book and that their excuse that no one else read his ideas is now 100% debunked by hard facts - not merely by rhetorical opinion.

No matter how much evidence you gather to support another person's theory, such industrious plodding can never transmute the original ideas, creative explanations and discoveries made by an originator into your own. But it can give that impression to pseudo-scholars.

Dennis Lendrem
February 11, 2014 at 7:51 am

Strickland and Darwin sat on the same sub-committee drawing up the Rules of Nomenclature. So to interpret the correspondence between Darwin and Strickland as "lobbying" seems somewhat uncharitable.

But anyone interested can follow their correspondence and make up their own mind. See

Thinker's Post
Mike Sutton
February 11, 2014 at 8:31 am

Dennis please....I do know they were on the same committee. It is you sir who needs to read primary sources, rather than jumping to conclusions about what I have and have not read. Minds should be made up by weighing facts not fallacious assumptions. I believe I have read more than most on this topic - including original sources. And in particular - hidden by time and long forgotten original sources.

Let me explain .. After the rules were drawn up by Strickland ( NOTE: which is after Darwin was on the committee with Strickland!) Desperate Darwin's lobbying took place over 2-3 years. Pre-Origin I might add.

If you read the correspondence between Darwin and Strickland, particularly the letter weirdly destroyed in the Darwin Archive at Down House, but that was preserved in the Strickland Archive - you Dennis will see Darwin informing Strickland that not only does he want to have priority over originators but that he wishes to see originators who are not as famous as himself "buried in oblivion" (Darwin's precise words). You will see also that Strickland tells him in no uncertain terms that he will not comply by changing the rules. You will then see Darwin moaning to his mentor Lyell that he tried but failed.

Until now Darwin got his way. Because his fallacies myths and lies succeeded in burying Matthew in oblivion. Literally! The Originator of the theory of natural selection lies somewhere in an un-marked grave in Errol churchyard in Scotland. (Possibly under a slab of old concrete bearing the initials PM). Meanwhile Darwin is in Westminster Abbey.

Dennis Lendrem
February 11, 2014 at 10:32 am

My read of the "buried in oblivion" letter was quite different.

To me it had the familiar ring of two academics complaining that certain gentlemen were more interested in self-promotion than academic scholarship.

The practice of naming species after oneself was considered very bad form. This was a view held by many members of the subcommittee. But in recognizing the priority principle they accepted this vulgar practice: such claims would need to be acknowledged rather than buried in oblivion.

So, was Charles Darwin "...a lying plagiarist and the greatest science fraudster the world has ever known."

I doubt it.

But I will keep an open mind.

Thinker's Post
Mike Sutton
February 11, 2014 at 10:47 am

Ironically, whatever the "ring" is to you Dennis, had Darwin succeeded then Richard Dawkins would not today need to be out on his little mission to convince the World that priority is a matter of promotion. "Trumpeting from the rooftops" as Dawkins refers to it. Because had Darwin succeed in changing Strickland's mind then the rules on priority would have been changed. And that is my point.

On the main point - Was Darwin a plagiarizer - oh yes! I have heaps more serious evidence in my book. And this priority episode is, anyway, a very minor off-shoot - as I'm sure you must realize - from the comments section only and, consequently, it has absolutely nothing to do with the main content of this blog, which is on the matter of who the facts reveal Darwin knew who read Matthew's book.

Your "open mind" is I am quite sure focused now upon Darwin's published claim that no one read Matthew's book.

To seek a "more balanced" assessment, of the facts, rather than succumb to the knee-jerk "Semmelweis Reflex", surely if naturalists who Darwin met and corresponded with pre-Origin actually cited Matthew's book in the literature and commented on his unique ideas on species why does your 'open mind' doubt Darwin was a lying plagiarist? Was he more likely than not merely a dumb schnook and not a crook then? Or else perhaps more likely than not a wizard made him do it?

In fact, on a "more balanced" assessment of the facts, given my discovery of the new facts of who Darwin knew well who cited Matthew's book, and given the facts of the amazing extent of Darwin's and Wallace's mutually "independent"replication of its unique ideas, if Darwin and Wallace never plagiarized Matthew then we have the first established and verifiable account of a truly paranormal event. Shall I, therefore, enter my book for the James Randi Foundation $1m prize?

Thinker's Post
Mike Sutton
February 9, 2014 at 9:36 am
The Dysology Hypothesis

Darwinist Dysology

Are Darwinists such Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer suitably independent 'experts' to sit in judgement of whether or not someone not named Darwin should have absolute priority over their namesake for the theory that made him their namesake?

Asking Darwinists to investigate Matthew's priority over Darwin and Wallace is like asking Al Capone to investigate the Mafia.

Darwin claimed in the third edition of the Origin of Species that neither he nor anyone else had read Matthew's (1831) book ' On Naval Timber and Arboriculture'. However, the newly discovered facts that Matthew's book was read by Darwin's close friends and associates prove the dangers of iconic hero worship and credulous belief. If Darwin never read Matthew's book when those around him, who knew he was working on the problem of species, had read it then he was a schnook and not a crook. You can believe Darwin was simply an innocent schnook if you want to credulously believe in something, but the new facts prove that Matthew now has full priority over Darwin and Wallace.

No matter how much evidence you gather to support another person's theory, such industrious plodding can never transmute the original ideas, creative explanations and discoveries made by an originator into your own. But it can give that impression to pseudo-scholars.

Good scholars always go back to primary sources. Pseudo-scholars believe in myths and fallacies and then compound myth on myth to create deeply entrenched supermyths. Once that happens we end up with a spiraling decline of veracity.

Letting scholars get away with publishing fallacies and myths signals to others the existence of topics where guardians of good scholarship might be less capable than elsewhere. Such dysology then serves as an allurement to poor scholars to disseminate existing myths and fallacies and to create and publish their own in these topic areas, which leads to a downward spiral of diminishing veracity on particular topics.

Dennis Lendrem
February 9, 2014 at 6:52 am
Five Bridges & The Origins of Natural Selection

Your readers might find Richard Dawkins' "Five Bridges" lecture most interesting:

His views on Patrick Matthews and the origins of Natural Selection are clear.

Thinker's Post
Mike Sutton
February 9, 2014 at 9:04 am

Hi Dennis.

Yes, that's the point I was making regarding your 'balanced account' comment. Dawkins is quite clear on the importance of what Matthew discovered and that he fully articulated his prior discovery of natural selection. But Dawkins is also clearly wrong to believe Darwin and Wallace were independent discoverers. Because the newly discovered facts prove that, contrary to Dawkins' credulous dissemination of the Darwinist myth that Darwin and Wallace each discovered it independently of Matthew, that Matthew did in actual point of fact influence many other naturalists. Moreover, those other naturalists actually cited his book of 1831 and his ideas - and those other naturalist include all the recognized post-1831 major pre-cursors to Darwin's Origin.

My forthcoming book proves that naturalists who Darwin admitted influenced him had read Matthew' 1831 book - because they cited it!. That and a wealth of other new evidence proves that Darwin (like Wallace) was a lying plagiarist and the greatest science fraudster the world has ever known.

With hard facts rather than adoration-blinkering rhetoric we can now "see further" than the end of Darwin's lying pen and Dawkins' Darwinist perpetuation of the self-serving Patrick Matthew Supermyth.

Dennis Lendrem
February 9, 2014 at 5:45 am
The Origins of the Theory of Natural Selection

For a somewhat more balanced account of the origins of the Theory of Natural Selection - including other, arguably stronger, claims to precedence than those of Patrick Matthew such as William Charles Wells and Edward Blyth - see Bowler, Peter J 2003 Evolution: History of an Idea.


William Charles Wells: Green, JHS 1957 William Charles Wells FRS (1757-1817) Nature, 179, 997-999.

Edward Blyth: Dobzhansky, T 1959 Blyth, Darwin,and Natural Selection. American Naturalist, 93, 204-206.

Thinker's Post
Mike Sutton
February 9, 2014 at 6:08 am

Actually, for a balanced account Dennis I highly recommend you get up to speed and read Richard Dawkins who - like other experts on this question - puts Matthew head and shoulders over both Wells and Blyth. See: Dawkins, R. (2010). Darwin’s Five Bridges: The Way to Natural Selection In Bryson, B (ed.) Seeing Further: The Story of Science and the Royal Society. London Harper Collins.

Unlike Matthew, Well's only touched on the subject and only with regard to human adaptation - not species change by way of divergence from a common ancestor . And Blyth came years after Matthew and he believed that species did not change beyond variety within species. By the way, my book proves also that Blyth's best friend and co-author read Matthew' s book years before Blyth wrote on the topic.

Latest Thinking in Science
Latest Ebooks