Trumpet from the rooftopsPublic Domain
Darwinist Richard Dawkins Deifies Darwin at the Expense of the Obvious Truth that Patrick Matthew has Full Priority for the Theory Darwin Stole
Matthew's Hypothesis and Self-Serving Darwinist Dysology
Following the self-serving rhetoric of Alfred Wallace, who wrote in his autobiography that Matthew failed to see the importance of his full prior-discovery of natural selection because he never personally developed it further, Richard Dawkins (2010) replicated the same "poor sucker never knew what he had" nonsense with his "wouldn't he have trumpeted it from the rooftops if he understood its importance" rhetorical question.
Outside of the intellectual care home for such daft Darwinist nonsense, the reason Matthew never took his idea any further forward and never trumpeted his discovery from any rooftops are quite obviously twofold.
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
Firstly, as Matthew (1860) informed Darwin in the pages of the Gardener's Chronicle', the first half of the 19th century was a time where his unique ideas on the origin of species trespassed on the territory of natural theology and so were deemed heretical and not to be taught or cited. This is the exact same reason why other writers (e.g. Desmond, A. Moore, J. and Browne, J. (2007) Charles Darwin. Oxford. Oxford University Press.) think Darwin held off publishing his own work on natural selection for over 20 years. Moreover Matthew even informed Darwin in 1860 in the pages of the prestigious Gardener's Chronicle that a naturalist of an eminent university feared to teach the ideas on natural selection in his 1831 book, because he feared pillory punishment were he to do so. Furthermore, in the same letter in the Chronicle, Matthew informed Darwin that his book was banned by Perth public library for the exact same reasoning. See Sutton 2016 for the publication citations, full references and the peer reviewed facts of this matter, and much more besides.
It seems that Dawkins, whilst out cherry picking facts and 'cherry-stepping away from other inconvenient others' ,and trumpeting his misty eyed Darwin worship nonsense bias from the rooftops, is blissfully (perhaps even wilfully) unaware of the historical context of the subject matter about which he claims to be expert. With Saint Darwin tinted spectacles off, the cold hard fact of the matter is that the rules of the Royal Society, the British Association for Advancement of Science, The London Geological Society, The Linnean Society, and so many others were regulated by license and founded upon laws made in the 18th century; laws based upon the British Government's and royalist's great fear of their own revolutionary overthrow in the wake of the French Revolution. As Uglow (2002: p. 464) explains very clearly what happened in the year 1794:
''Pitt passed his notorious Two Acts against 'Seditious Meetings' and 'Treasonable Practices': the former hit particularly at the institutional societies, requiring them to be licensed and proscribing discussion of religion or politics'.
In addition to explaining very clearly and patiently to weirdly biased Darwinists the problem that what Matthew had written trespassed - heretically and seditiously - upon the sacramental territory of natural theology on the question of the origin and extinction of species, and that he had then woven his hypothesis of natural section into his seditious Chartist politics (see my book Nullius for further discussion of citations to wider published scholarship on this topic), a further most telling reply to this especially biased made for Matthew "he needed to trumpet" argument is to ask, alternatively, why should Matthew be required to have done any more than publish his hypothesis, which he actually invited others to test?
The Darwinist Wyhe claims that it was lack of evidence to support that very hypothesis that kept Darwin from publishing on the topic for 20 years. Why then should leading Darwinists such as Richard Dawkins demand more of Matthew than Darwin?
Secondly, Matthew posed his bombshell ideas as a hypothesis and simply invited other naturalists to test them by experiment and observation (pretty much like Alexander Fleming and Peter Higgs). In the 19th century, as I explain in my book 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret' (see also: Secord. J. A. (2000) Victorian Sensation: The Extraordinary Reception, and Secret Authorship of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. Chicago and London. The University of Chicago Press.) there was great prejudice against simply posing a deducted hypothesis and it was against the code of 19th century gentlemen of science to do so or to cite such work.
John van Wyhe (2007) has written a paper, which offers this as a very plausible reason why Darwin delayed publishing for so long. The most telling question here is to ask: 'Why then should Darwinists insist that Matthew should have done that which they are perfectly happy to make rational excuses for their namesake not doing?' I think the answer is obvious. Darwinists are terribly biased-blinded in favour of their namesake whenever it comes to the question of Matthew's right to his own theory; the one Darwin replicated and called his own.
Sir Gavin de Beer - a Royal Society Darwin Medal winner - spread the myth started by Darwin's deliberate lie - that not a single person read Patrick Matthew's prior published hypothesis of natural selection.
(c) Darwin and WallaceAttribution
Miracle Double Immaculate Conceptions of the Blessed Virgins Darwin and Wallace of Matthew's prior published hypothesis of natural selection
Thinker Media IncUsed only with express written permission
Nullius in Verba
I have uniquely discovered an embarrassment of new information that dis-confirms 155 years of Darwinist nonsense about the discovery of natural selection.
The hard newly discovered facts, run contrary to the apparently willfully ignorant self-serving made-up nonsense spread by desperate Darwin biographer James Moore that I have probably discovered nothing new.
On 28th may, Darwinist Moore made his disparaging non-event claim to the Daily Telegraph despite the embarrassingly shameful fact that he never even read my book before fallaciously mouthing off to the press about what he thought was probably not in it. Why would he do such a daft thing?
In reality, prior to the publication of my book, it was universally, but fallaciously, as it now turns out, believed that Charles Darwin told the truth when he wrote in 1860 that apparently no naturalist had read Patrick Matthew's 1831 book, which contained the full theory of natural selection.
Three Wise Darwin Scholar Monkeys
Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret is the hard-fact-led mythbusting book that re-wrote the history of the discovery of natural selection with new BigData made discoveries of the once hidden books that reveal who Darwin and Wallace knew who really did read Patrick Matthew's prior publication of the full theory of natural selection before Darwin and Wallace supposedly 'independently' replicated it in 1858 with, supposedly, no knowledge of what Matthew had discovered that their friends and influencers had read and actually cited in the literature before influencing them on the same topic!
The work of leading Darwinists, being so seriously flawed by their adoration of Darwin, shades rather than illuminates the process of the discovery of natural selection.