Gregor Mendel published his research on sweet peas and the laws of genetic inheritance in 1865. Supposedly never having read it, a year later Darwin writes to Wallace about his "own independent discovery" of inheritance in sweet peas - no less!. This reveals another amazing Darwin coincidence miracle of immaculate e conception "independent discovery" of prior-published bombshell discoveries.
In his book The Greatest Show on Earth, Richard Dawkins, the self-appointed, world's most skeptically objective atheist Darwinist, reveals just how biased he really is when it comes to his namesake - Darwin.
On page 30 and 31 of his book, Dawkins writes about Mendel's 1856-1863 research on sweat peas that was published in 1865. Publishing, in his book, a letter Darwin sent to Wallace, Dawkins explains how a year after Mendel's paper on inheritance characteristics of varieties of sweet peas was published, Darwin was privately telling Wallace about his own experiments on the exact same plants and his unpublished private, highly similar, though not as good, conclusions.
Despite the fact Mendel got there first, more fully and in a published paper, the Darwinist Dawkins weirdly writes of his namesake's conclusions:
'Darwin came that close to discovering Mendel's law of non blending (what we would now call genes). The case is analogous to the claim, by various aggrieved apologists, that other aggrieved scientists, for example Patrick Matthew and Edward Blyth, had discovered natural selection before Darwin did. In a sense that is true, as Darwin acknowledged, but I think the evidence shows that they didn't understand how important it is.'
Let's dispose of Dawkins' most pertinent Darwin-bias nonsense first. Someone should tell Dawkins that it is impossible to know the mind of the dead on a particular topic unless they told us it before they died. Matthew published his discovery and posed it as a hypothesis, inviting others to test it and find evidences to support or dis-confirm it. He did that in the same way that years later Alexander Fleming did with penicillin and just as Peter Higgs did with his hypothesis of the existence of the "God particle". The fact that Matthew publicly laid claim to his hypothesis as soon as he heard that Darwin in 1859 had replicated it without citing his book of 1831 is powerful confirmatory evidence that he fully understood the importance of his discovery. The fact that a comprehensive analysis of the publication record proves Matthew fought unsuccessfully all his life to be fully recognized for his rightful priority is further evidence he fully understood the importance of his discovery.
Turning to Dawkins' notion of what he thinks is a good analogy by way comparing Darwin's unpublished letter on sweet peas to Matthew's prior published discovery in a book with major London and Edinburgh publishers. Dawkins is being completely ludicrous!
I don't apologize. How on Earth can Dawkins rationally think Darwin's mere private letter (unpublished) written a year after Mendel published his bombshell research is analogous to Matthew's full and prior-published explanation of the entire hypothesis of natural selection - indeed, as it turns out a better explanation than Darwin's erroneous uniformitarian replication of it is any kind of honest and useful analogy?
What in Dawkins's so called analogy is analogous to what exactly?
I'll tell you what. The usefully rational analogy here is what we might call the "Plodding Replicator Analogy".
The Plodding Replicator Analogy
Just as Darwin replicated in his book, without citing it, Matthew's prior-published discovery of natural selection, so did he - in a private letter - near-replicate, without citing it, Mendel's prior published discovery of the laws of inheritance.
Elsewhere, Dawkins (2010, p. 211) - in Bill Bryson's book "Seeing Further"- reveals an equal measure of bias. Because, in a book chapter essay on who should have priority for the discovery of natural selection, Dawkins fully admits that Matthew discovered and published it first yet Dawkins writes:
"Wells therefore seems to have arrived at a form of 'group selection' rather than true, Darwinian natural selection as Matthew did, which selects individual organisms for their reproductive success."
That one "Dawkinism" must rank high among the most laughably biased sentences ever published by a leading member of the orthodox scientific community. Dawkins should get a prize for it. Because, regardless of the fact that evolutionary biologists now use the term "Darwinist" as shorthand for "natural selection," in the case of a discussion about Matthew's priority, it reveals a level of subconscious bias that is way up the baloney and 'bullony' scale. Logic and objectivity insists that if Matthew discovered it and prior published it, then it must fittingly be called "Matthewian natural selection".
Conclusions and the way forward.
As my earlier blog post on Peter Bowler confirms, it appears that we cannot trust a person calling themselves a Darwinist to be objective with regard to their namesake on the topic of contested knowledge about the history of the discovery of natural selection.
Although an atheist myself, I cannot help wondering what a Christian scientist such as Friar Gregor Mendel would have made of Dawkins. Maybe he would have asked: "What in God's name is wrong with Richard Dawkins?"
Who knows, maybe - highly improbable though it seems to me - there is a God and Dawkins is the "Lord's" unwitting Atheist Apostle?"
Whatever the case, the published work of Dawkins on the history of the discovery of natural selection, in my opinion, confirms the Frozen Donkey Hypothesis, which means, if it is correct, that an objective history of the discovery of natural selection will never be told by scientists or historians calling themselves a Darwinist.
Worldwide copyright laws applyUsed only with express written permission
Patrick Matthew: Solver of the problem of emergence of new and extinction of species, God-slaying biological father of the theory of natural selection
POSTSCRIPT 17th April 2015
Confirmatory evidence for the Frozen Donkey Hypothesis was found by way of the fact Darwinists, being biologists, were unable to spot that Matthew originated the greatest analogy of all time, which just like his hypothesis, was replicated after his prior publication of it by both Darwin and Wallace (details here).
Keep up with the news on this hot topic by following The Seer of Gourdie Hill on Twitter.