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

Do Darwinists Suffer from Irrational Biblical Miracle Envy? Why else do they deny the rational significance of what has been newly discovered that re-writes the history of scientific discovery?

May 31, 2015 10:20 am

(c) Darwin and WallaceAttribution

Miracle Double Immaculate Conceptions of the Blessed Virgins Darwin and Wallace of Matthew's prior published hypothesis of natural selection

For the background story to this painting, visit Gabriel Woods and Matthew Art.


What has been newly discovered in Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret that changes everything we thought we knew about the discovery of natural selection?

Before the publication of my book Nullius, Darwinists simply believed their namesake and Alfred Wallace when each claimed to have discovered the hypothesis of natural selection "independently" of Patrick Matthew's prior publication of it. They held this mere belief because none had looked behind Darwin's (1860) excuse for replicating Matthew's prior published unique discovery that : "I think that no one will feel surprised that neither I nor apparently any other naturalist had heard of Mr Matthews’ views..."

So what did I uniquely discover to prove the rational improbability that either or Darwin or Wallace discovered natural selection independently of Patrick Matthew's prior publication of the full hypothesis? And what did I uniquely discover to prove Darwin and Wallace were not at all the honest and humble scientists portrayed in the literature - but were instead egotistical self-serving liars?

1. Darwin lied when he wrote in his defense in the Gardeners Chronicle in 1860 that :"...neither I nor apparently any other naturalist had heard of Mr Matthews’ views..." because Matthew told him in the letter to which Darwin responded with that lie that John Loudon had written a review of his book. Loudon - a noted botanist and fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, Royal Horticultural Society and the Linnean Society (amongst others) had been dead 16 years by then. But Darwin knew he was a naturalists because his notebook of books read was jam-packed with Loudon's books (often heavily annotated). And that same notebook showed that Darwin had held in his hands at least five publications that cited Matthew, two of which were written by Loudon. Not only that, but it is also newly discovered that Darwin's notebook of books to read and books read showed he owned a copy of an article Matthew wrote in 1829 on hybridizing fruit trees (a topic Darwin wrote about in his private 1837-38 Zoonomia notebook). The article in question is: Matthew, P. 1829. Some Account of the Fruits grown in Gourdie Hill Orchard Carse of Gowrie with Remarks. In a Letter from Patrick Matthew Esq. to the Secretary dated 3. December 1827. Memoirs of the Caledonian Horticultural Society. Fourth Volume. Edinburgh. Maclachlan and Stewart. London Simpkin and Marshall. Moreover, Darwin had his best friend the botanist Joseph Hooker approve his letter containing his lie that apparently no naturalist had read Matthew's 1831 unique ideas, and then send it on his behalf to the Gardener's Chronicle. Joseph Hooker also knew Loudon was a naturalist. In fact, he had earlier written that Loudon was better than any other in Europe. This is the same Joseph Hooker who had in 1858 worked with Darwin's other great friend and mentor Charles Lyel to slyly mislead the Linnean Society into believing Wallace had given his consent to have his paper read before them and then published with Darwin's. Wallace's paper they read along with (but after) Darwin's so that it would thereafter be called Darwin's and Wallace's theory. Darwin continued his lie that Matthew's book had gone unread, despite Matthew telling him in his second letter to the Gardener's Chronicle of other naturalists besides Loudon who had read it, from the third edition of the Origin of species and in a letter to the eminent French naturalist Quatrefages de Bréau (April 25, 1861).

Moreover, Matthew - in a second 1860 letter to the Gardener's Chronicle - informed Matthew of yet another naturalist who had read his orignal ideas on natural selection,but feared pillory punishment were he to teach them, and that Perth public library in Scotland banned his book for containing those ideas. Darwin responded by publishing the same lie that no one had read Matthew's ideas before Matthew brought them to his personal attention in 1860. That great 'plagiarising by glory-theft' lie has been parroted as the gospel truth by the World' leading Darwinists ever since (more on the full story here) .

2, Had any Darwinists - who society relies upon to tell the veracious story of the discovery of natural selection - not simply swallowed Darwin's story- hook, line and "Hooker" - noticed Darwin's great lie that no naturalist had read Matthew's book pre 1860 then they might have investigated whether or not what Loudon did as a naturalist might be important in the veracious story of the discovery of natural selection. Had they done that then they would have discovered that Loudon did far more than write in his 1832 book review that Matthew may have written something original on "the origin of species", because they would also have found what I uniquely discovered: namely, that Loudon edited two of Edward Blyth's influential papers on the evolution of species and varieties of organic life; papers which definitely influenced Darwin - because he wrote from the third edition of the Origin of Species onward that Byth was his most important and prolific informant on the topic.

3. To further uniquely bust the myth that no naturalist read Matthew's (1831) prior published hypothesis, I uniquely discovered six more naturalists actually cited it in the literature before Darwin's and Wallace's papers were read before the Linnean Society in 1858. Darwin knew four of them. And Darwin and Wallace were influenced and facilitated by two of those naturalists.

  • Selby cited Matthew's book many times in 1842 and then went on to edit Wallace's (1855) Sarawak paper - which Darwin also read pre 1858. Darwin and his friends knew Selby very well. Darwin sat on committees with him and his father and friends had even stayed at Selby's home - where Matthew's book sat in the library.
  • Chambers cited Matthew's book in 1832 and then in 1842 wrote 'The Vestiges of Creation' the best seller on evolution that was Wallace's greatest influence and a great influence on Darwin for famously putting evolution "in the air" in the first half of the 19th century. Darwin was a friend and correspondent of Chambers. And Lyell was a member of the same Geological society as Chambers and heard him speak on more than one occasion. It is well known that both Darwin and Lyell knew that Chambers was the anonymous author of the heretical Vestiges.

4. Wallace misled the world in his autobiography by slyly deleting incriminating text in his transcription of his letter to his mother where he had written that following what Darwin, Lyell and Hooker had done at the Linnean Society with his work that he was owed "assistance" by Darwin and his associates. And he did indeed receive a great deal of financial and social "assistance" from them thereafter.

5. Darwin told a further five lies that mislead the world into crediting him with priority over Matthew for the Originator's unique discovery.

6. Matthew was the first to use the powerfully simple Artificial versus Natural Selection Analogy of Differences to explain the complexity of natural selection. This is probably the most important explanatory analogy ever published in the history of humanity. Loren Eiseley (1979) had earlier discovered that Darwin's unpublished (1844) replicated Matthew's (1831) plants grown in nurseries versus those growing wild analogy of differences to explain the operation of natural selection. What none before me picked up on is that Darwin (1859) opened Chapter 1 of the Origin of Species with Matthew's unique explanatory analogy:

'When we look to the individuals of the same variety or sub-variety of our older cultivated plants and animals, one of the first points which strikes us, is, that they generally differ much more from each other, than do the individuals of any one species or variety in a state of nature. When we reflect on the vast diversity of the plants and animals which have been cultivated, and which have varied during all ages under the most different climates and treatment, I think we are driven to conclude that this greater variability is simply due to our domestic productions having been raised under conditions of life not so uniform as, and somewhat different from, those to which the parent-species have been exposed under nature.'

7. Wallace replicated that exact same analogy of differences in his 1858 Ternate paper, which was read after Darwin's before the Linnean Society in 1858.

8. Using new technology of Big Data analysis, I was able to determine - out of over 30 million publications in Google's Library Project - which terms and phrases in his 1831 book were apparently coined by Matthew and who was then apparently first to be second to use them in print. I discovered many naturalists well known to Darwin and his closest associates who were apparently first to be second with apparently unique Matthewisms. Surprisingly, five out of only 25 people in the entire world discovered in this way were naturalists well known to Charles Lyell. This method also uniquely revealed that Chambers was first to be second to replicate Matthew's unique term for his discovery 'natural process of selection' and that Darwin uniquely four-word-shuffled that term into its only grammatically correct equivalent 'process of natural selection', which he used nine times in the Origin of Species (1859). As far as I have been able to ascertain, at the time of writing, before this fact was presented in 2014 in my book 'Nullius' no one had noticed that Darwin uniquely four-word-shuffled Matthew's unique name for his discovery. Had they done so, they might have discovered before I did that Robert Chambers read and cited both of Matthew's books before going on to influence both Darwin and Wallace, and the rest of the world, on the topic of organic evolution.

9. An electronic plagiarism check reveals many examples of great similarity between the prose and ideas of Wallace and Darwin compared to Matthew's. But Darwin also replicated Matthew's unique creative process by replicating his examples of how the natural process of selection works. By way of just two examples in addition to the example of plants grown in nurseries that Eiseley discovered, Darwin also replicated Matthew's examples of what happens when many seedlings spring up together in a forest. Moreover, he replicated what Matthew cited from Steuart (1828) about cattle eating young trees..Only where Matthew cited his source about the cattle example, Darwin audaciously pretended it was his own observation in nature. My book Nullius has an entire chapter dedicated to many other uniquely discovered examples of Darwin's and Wallace's obvious plagiarism of Matthew's book.

10. Nullius uniquely contains the 'Virgin Darwin Allegorical Analogy Explanation', which Is particularly designed for Darwinist atheists. In effect, the analogy is that we know the Virgin Mary of Christian belief was surrounded by men whose testicles were to some unknown degree fertile. And it is for that reason that her mythical conception of the child of a supernatural sky-dwelling deity ("God") is a supernatural miracle. Analogously to the Blessed St Mary, so too do we newly know that, pre-1858, Darwin and Wallace were surrounded and influenced by men whose brains were fertile to some unknown degree with Matthew's unique ideas - because those men had read and then cited his book and they are known influencers of Darwin and Wallace. It would, therefore, be a supernatural miracle, perhaps granted by some divine invisible cognitive contraceptive, for both Darwin and Wallace to have immaculately conceived Patrick Matthew's prior published unique complex theory of the natural process of selection, his four words to name it, his analogy to explain it and even his unique and idiosyncratic examples of its operation in nature.

Darwinists, unconvinced by the strong new evidence for Darwin's and Wallace's work being contaminated by Matthew's influence, and similarly unconvinced by the further evidence for their science fraud being more likely than not, insist that we must - in order to convince them - find in the decimated archives of the 19th century a "smoking" gun letter from or to Darwin and or Wallace revealing that they definitely knew about Matthew's unique ideas pre-1858. By rational retort, the lesson of the 'Virgin Darwin Allegorical Analogy Explanation' is to ask them a most telling question: "Why then do you not insist on us finding a 2000 year old paternity admission letter from the human biological father of Jesus of Nazareth in order to be convinced that it would be a miracle for Jesus to be the biological son of the Christian 'God'?" The answer is because Darwinists already know that it is outside the realm of current scientific experience and understanding for women to conceive a child without the presence of male human sperm. Can Darwinists, therefore, show us one example in the whole of human history where a complex prior published theory has been immaculately conceived by another human (never mind two at the same time) whilst surrounded, facilitated and influenced by others who read it before influencing them, corresponding with them, meeting with them and their family and other friends and influencers and facilitating their work? Of course not. Darwinists are, therefore, being completely irrational by denying the strength and great importance of the new data in Nullius. It seems they do not love science and reason at all.


In addition to these unique discoveries, which mean highly influential knowledge contamination from Matthew to Darwin and Wallace is now rationally proven far more likely than not, I have uniquely unearthed a plethora of clues as to where to look next for printed or hand-written 19th century confirmatory evidence that the author or recipient of as yet undiscovered "smoking gun" text was Darwin or Wallace; or else where to look next for such documentary evidence that reveals that they knew by reading or else writing it that Darwin or Wallace was aware of Matthew's book pre 1858. Namely, in the correspondence, notebooks, published and unpublished work, and private diary archives of those I discovered cited Matthew's (1831) book before 1858, or else were apparently first to be second with apparently unique Matthewisms before 1858 - and also in the diaries, notebooks, published and unpublished work and private correspondence archives of their friends and associates. Let us call this Sutton's New Data Hypothesis. And let it be noted boldly here for the historical record that I am publicly inviting other scholars to be guided by the names uniquely unearthed in my book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret to go out into the field and test it. I do this just as Matthew (1831) invited other scholars to test his own unique hypothesis of the natural process of selection by their observations and experiments.

A Note of Rational Caution: Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence

Professional Darwinists, as natural scientists, are perhaps particularly unsuited as a group to objectively and logically assess the evidence for their namesake's plagiarizing science fraud. There is, obviously, the first great handicap they carry, which is that Darwinists are named for the man they would try to objectively investigate. More so, however, is the problem that these scholars repeatedly confuse Darwin's private notebooks and letters as some kind of objective fossil record of what he did or did not do or know.

Darwin - like all of us - was no robot. Consequently, he did not write down or record everything he did or knew. Darwinists themselves know this - when it suits them - because they know that Darwin never could tell his publisher - who demanded to know - where exactly he found the term 'natural selection' in the literature. Darwin could only write. fallaciously, that the term was in abundant use in the literature. Moreover, Darwin's Darwinists even refer to some of Darwin's most important private documents as his "torn apart notebooks". And many have remarked on the extent to which letters in the Darwin archive are simple "missing". In reality, it is no secret that much of Darwin's correspondence - and letters he received - are "missing". Wallace's original Ternate paper is "missing". Darwin tore his own notebooks apart and ripped out many pages from his notebooks. What those pages contained we will never know. Darwin habitually rendered whole sections of his own handwriting illegible by scribbling over it. Relying therefore on the insensible argument that what survives of Darwin's letters and notebooks show that he slowly and independently of Matthew's prior published book discovered the bombshell hypothesis of natural selection is just plain silly. Darwinists do themselves a great intellectual disservice by relying upon such daft-as-a-brush reasoning as some kind of strong evidence that their namesake arrived at the theory of natural selection independently of Matthew, because we now newly know that both Darwin and Wallace were influenced and facilitated pre-1858 by naturalists who they knew - who they said were a great influence upon them - who had cited Matthew's 1831 book, containing the full theory of natural selection, in the literature before 1858 (Chambers) and by another (Blyth) whose editor (Loudon) had reviewed it and remarked on its originality on the topic of "the origin of species" and by Wallace's own Sarawak paper editor (Selby) who sat with Darwin on various scientific committees many times pre 1858 and had both Darwin's father and his great friend Jenyns as house guests - where Matthew's book sat in his library, having been purchased for him in 1840 by the great and influential naturalist Jardine - no less.

To be kind, the least we can say now is that any Darwinists claiming in their namesake's defense that this new evidence is weak are being irrational. In the name of reason, the new evidence is so strong it logically renders all previous evidence for Darwin's and Wallace's so called dual "independent" discoveries of Matthew's prior published hypothesis not just weak but completely insensible.

The problem, however, for veracity in the history of science is the same as James Randi famously explained about those who believe in the paranormal and other debunked and otherwise un-evidenced nonsense:

"The public really doesn't listen when they are being told straight-forward facts. They would rather accept what some charismatic character tells them than really think about what the truth might be. They would rather have the romance and the lies."

The general public, by simply believing the words of those charismatic Darwinists posing as skeptical scientists and educators, writing scholarly books and articles that teach their now debunked fallacies about the history of Matthew's book, have fallen into the exact same trap as credulous punters at a spoon bending séance.


Thinker Media IncUsed only with express written permission

Nullius in Verba

This post explains exactly what has been uniquely discovered and revealed in my book 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret. This is the information that professional Darwinists did not and do not want you to know about, because it 100% proves that, as individuals and as a group, for the past 155 years, those named after their science hero have been churning out absolute credulous 'deifying Darwin' nonsense about the discovery of natural selection. By way of just one telling example amongst many I could cite, why else would Darwin's apparently adoration-blinded biographer James Moore proclaim to his eternal shame when asked to comment on my book, which he had not even bothered his biased brain to read: "I would be extremely surprised if there was any new evidence had not been already seen and interpreted in the opposite way."

In reply to Moore: I would be extremely surprised if he, a professionally biased Darwinist with so much at stake following his own career failure to look any further than the unfounded self-serving lies penned by Darwin for his own replicated fallacious 'knowledge beliefs, ever engaged with the hard new facts, which I have uniquely discovered. The new hard facts of the matter are that Charles Darwin is now, as a result of my original 100% independently verifiable and important discoveries, a proven liar who far more likely than not knew about Matthew's unique ideas pre-1858 and was influenced by them. Contrary to widely published Darwinist fallacies, both Darwin and Wallace are newly proven by my work to have known naturalists who read Matthew's book containing his prior published hypothesis of natural selection before they influenced them on the exact same topic and before Darwin and wallace each replicated the hypothesis, so many ideas, explanations and unique explanatory examples that were uniquely first published in Matthew's (1831) book. I suggest Moore write his next book on the Semmelweis reflex so that he can understand his own role in demonstrating it, but not before he has studied the fact of its namesake's mythology.

Note: Further details about the story of Matthew, Darwin, and Wallace can be found on the Patrick Matthew website:

There are currently no comments.
Latest Thinking in Science
Latest Ebooks