Trumpet form the rooftopsPublic Domain
The Mutant Scottish Meme
Thanks to the technology that facilitated the “Big Data” analysis of 30 million books, it is newly discovered that Patrick Matthew can be the only independent discoverer of natural selection (see Sutton 2014 for just some of the shocking new details that now present a momentous problem for Darwinists if they wish to defend their namesake against science fraud).
I was congratulated yesterday by a professor of anthropology who wrote by email to tell me that this new discovery is going to upset a lot of people. Unfortunately, those same people will be even more upset once they are made aware of the contents of this blog. Let me explain.
Effectively, natural selection now belongs to the Scot Matthew – the new facts mean there is no rational argument against that. Darwinists could eventually get over it I suppose. Perhaps they will rename themselves Matthewists? But I very much doubt that will happen, because Darwinists will find it much harder to recover from the fact that Matthew, although not at all in his (1831) seminal text, later in life believed in intelligent design (ID).
I revealed that fact in an earlier blog on the mysterious beauty of flowers (here), relaying what Matthew wrote to Darwin in 1871 (Matthew 1871):
‘That there is a principle of beneficence operating here the dual parentage and family affection pervading all the higher animal kingdom affords proof. A sentiment of beauty pervading Nature, with only some few exceptions affords evidence of intellect & benevolence in the scheme of Nature. This principle of beauty is clearly from design & cannot be accounted for by natural selection. Could any fitness of things contrive a rose, a lily, or the perfume of the violet. There is no doubt man is left purposely in ignorance of a future existence. Their pretended revelations are wretched nonsense.’
Let’s cut to the chase, because it is as likely as not going to happen anyway. Those stubbornly tautological creationists will most likely waste no time apart from their own arguing now that the theory of natural selection, being proven to be solely Matthew’s discovery, led its genius originator''s reasoning to evolve to the point where he deduced that some kind of altruistic/loving intelligence ‘designed’ nature independently of the natural process of selection.
This uncomfortable likelihood leads me to reflect upon what Broadie (2001) writes about the embracing acknowledgement of certain difficult truths within the great eighteenth century Scottish Enlightenment, a movement that greatly influenced and facilitated Matthew:
“At the practical level such acknowledgement had an essentially moral dimension in so far as it involved a toleration of the publication of disagreeable or discomforting ideas, for such toleration is a moral virtue.”
And so it is for the essential morality of truth in scholarship that we must no longer allow so many powerful interests within the orthodox scientific community and Darwin and Wallace Industry to myth-monger into obscurity, or else ignore, the great importance of Patrick Matthew’s contribution to science. But Darwinists won’t like it and so I expect they won’t give up without a fight. Many will never surrender their comforting knowledge-beliefs. One might reasonably expect the lazy rhetorical variety of adoring Darwinist, characterised by those who pontificate about Matthew from secondary sources only, to take the cognitive-dissonance path of least resistance to argue that Matthew never fully understood the significance of his own discovery. But such arguments, based as they are on Darwin's slyly and dishonestly created Appendix Myth (see Sutton 2014) do not stand up to scholarly scrutiny. The fact of the matter is that what Matthew (1831) wrote as a detailed scientific hypothesis in both the main body and appendix of his rebellious and heretical book is completely different from his private expression of opinion in a private letter sent to Darwin 40 years later.
For the past 154 years, Darwin and Wallace well and truly fooled the scientific establishment. However, in light of the discoveries made by big data analysis, the truth is out, which means no mythmongering Darwinist will ever re re-bury Matthew in oblivion.
Matthew might have handed the “Creator” his redundancy papers in 1831, but it seems for the entire world that some type of creator was re-employed in his thinking 40 years later. How evolutionary biologists and creationists struggle forward respectively to rhetorically accommodate and exploit that fact remains to be seen.
Thinker Media IncUsed only with express written permission
Nullius in Verba
To find out more about the book that dropped the bombshell on the history of scientific discovery please click here
Broadie, A. (2001)The Scottish Enlightenment Edinburgh. Birlinn
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.(1871) Letter: Matthew, Patrick to Darwin, C. R. 12 Mar. Darwin Correspondence Database, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-7576 accessed on Sat Aug 3 2013.