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'.

Charles Darwin Played Hokey Cokey with His "God"

Nov. 7, 2017 3:12 pm
Keywords: None

We know that Patrick Matthew, the (1831) originator of the theory of macroevolution by natural selection (see Sutton 2017), truly believed in later life that a supernatural deity set nature up to evolve from original designed creations. But Matthew never included that notion in his 1831 book 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture', which contains the original complete theory of evolution by natural selection. Whether he believed such a thing in 1831 is far from knowable on the basis of currently known evidence. Scholars may debate forever about what he meant by the word "Providence" in that book - whether it be Scottish prudence, or a religious notion - we simply do not know.

What we do know is that in his 1831 book Matthew mocked superstitious priests


Public Domain

Matthew mocked priests

Moreover, in the same (1831) book, (NTA) he clearly mocked the notion of a supernatural deity miraculously creating evolved new species.

Robert Chamber's, who cited Matthew's (1831) book 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture' in 1832, and then cited Matthew's (1839) book 'Emigration Fields' before going on to write his own guide on arboriculture (1842), followed by his own hugely influential book on evolution 'The Vestiges' (1844), always kept the notion of a supernatural "Creator" in The 'Vestiges'. He went on from there, in his book review of Darwin's (1859) 'Origin of Species' to be apparently first to be second, (in 1859) with Matthew's (1831) original four word term for his discovery: the 'natural process of selection' - the same four words were originally shuffled by Darwin the Replicator (1859) into their only possible other grammatically correct equivalent: the 'process of natural selection'.


(c) Dr Mike Sutton - All Rights ReservedAttribution Non-commercial

Immaculate Conception by Gabe Woods Oil on Canvas 2015 (Painting AKA: "The Virgin Darwin)

For his part in replicating Matthew's orignal ideas and then calling them "my theory", Darwin played hokey-cokey with the notion of a "Creator" in various editions of the Origin of Species. For example, in the first edition (1859) he makes no mention of the idea, but he wrote that the "Creator" set nature up to evolve in various subsequent editions from the third edition (1860) onward:see here


(c) Andy Sutton (c) Mike Sutton. All Rights ReservedUsed only with express written permission

Second Edition of Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret

Matthew's correspondence published in a German book - Hallier, E. (1866) Die sogenannte Darwin'sche Lehre und die Botanik Botanische Zeitung 24: 381-383 (here) -reveals why we know he did believe in later life that a 'creator' set things up to evolve: because he wrote that "creation must preclude selection": Although in 1871 there is a letter in the Darwin archive proving Matthew wrote to Darwin that: '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.'Earlier, in 1866, we see in the Botanische Zeitung communication he writes that he has had prior correspondence to that with Darwin about what Matthew deems to be the limitations of selective power:

There are currently no comments. to Shut Down Permanently on December 31, 2017

If you want to save a copy of your content, you must do so before the website shuts down on December 31, 2017. We will NOT be able to provide any assistance after the website shuts down. We are available at only until the shutdown to provide more information and assistance.

It was a noble 10-year experiment, but it turns out that the writers with the best content are the least adept at the tech required to publish under our model, which in hindsight, makes perfect sense. If you are dedicating your life to becoming an expert in your specialty, you don’t have a lot of time left for figuring out publishing tech.

It hasn't helped that we have entered an age of unprecedented polarization and antagonism which doesn't foster demand for a website dedicated to the respectful engagement of diverse views.

Thank you, everyone!

Latest Thinking in Science
Latest Ebooks