Plagiarising Science Fraud

Plagiarising Science Fraud
Newly Discovered Facts, Published in Peer Reviewed Science Journals, Mean Charles Darwin is a 100 Per Cent Proven Lying, Plagiarising Science Fraudster by Glory Theft of Patrick Matthew's Prior-Published Conception of the Hypothesis of Macro Evolution by Natural Selection

Tuesday, 24 November 2015

THANK YOU GOOGLE FOR: The Big Data-IDD Bombshell Detection Research Method


If you agree with any of the following three statements then is probably not for you

    1. I am not at all interested in learning that there are irrefutable facts that newly prove Charles Darwin was a liar who wrote the exact opposite to what he had been informed was the truth about who he knew who cited Patrick Matthew's book and the original ideas in it, which he claimed to have discovered independently of Matthew, before he replicated those ideas and then excused himself for doing so by writing self-serving lies that those original ideas in Matthew's book were unread by any naturalists and unread by anyone. [Agree] [Disagree]
    2. I am not interested in any evidence that denigrates the great original genius thinker Charles Darwin, and some of the most revered scientists in the world who credulously parroted his lies because I would rather have the romance and the lies. [Agree] [Disagree]
    3. It does not matter what has been newly proven about the probable influence of Matthew's original thinking on Darwin and Alfred Wallace, because all that matters is the ideas and who convinced the wider world of their importance. [Agree] [Disagree]

If you disagreed with all of the above statements then you might care enough about veracity in the history of scientific discovery to proceed to read the following fully evidenced facts

    1. Patrick Matthew was the only person to be first to discover the macro evolution process of natural selection as the answer to the origination and extinction of all species on Earth.(Evidence here   ).
    2. Darwin was a self-serving serial liar who deliberately corrupted the history of discovery of natural selection. (Evidence here)
    3. Leading evolutionary biologists parroted Darwin's lies, and by so doing facilitated a 'culture of concealment' of the evidence that proves Darwin and Wallace knew and were influenced directly by those who read - and then cited - Matthew's book, and the original ideas in it, before 1858. Moreover, Darwin's and Wallace's proven influencers also knew those who read and cited Matthew's original ideas before 1858. (Evidence here   ).

Sunday, 22 November 2015

On Darwinism v Darwinist

Vogt (1863) was apparently the first to be second to use the term Darwinist, which was first coined in 1861
I've noticed, since the publication of my myth busting bookNullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret,    that many commentators really don't like being referred to as Darwinists, although they have no problem with 'Darwinism'. Many Darwinists consider the word 'Darwinist' as a term of abuse, and they attribute it to irrational arguments made against Darwin and the theory of natural selection. On which note, according to Jonathan Wells, of the "intelligent design" community, the terms 'Darwinism' and Darwinist' are interchangeable and Darwinists are wrong to believe the term 'Darwinist' is meant to be derogatory.

Darwinist or Darwinian, They're One and the Same    by Jonathan Wells    August 31, 2007:

"Darwinian" is the name preferred by modern evolutionary biologists, who use it widely in the scientific and popular literature. Yet this is a distinction without a difference. Whether such people call themselves Darwinists or Darwinians, they apparently haven't heard the news that "evolutionary biology has advanced way beyond Darwin's 19th-century tracts."
Could Scott be following the lead of Harvard sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson, who claims that the word "Darwinism" was coined by creationists to make Darwin look bad? "It's a rhetorical device to make evolution seem like a kind of faith, like 'Maoism'," said Wilson in Newsweek in November 2005. "Scientists," he added, "don't call it Darwinism." [4]
Nice try, but Wilson's revisionist approach to the history of biology doesn't fit the facts. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, Thomas Henry Huxley (Darwin's most famous defender in Britain) used "Darwinism" in 1864 to describe Charles Darwin's theory. In 1876, Harvard botanist Asa Gray (who was Darwin's most ardent scientific defender in America) published Darwiniana: Essays and Reviews Pertaining to Darwinism, and in 1889 natural selection's co-discoverer Alfred Russel Wallace published Darwinism: An Exposition of the Theory of Natural Selection. Two of Wilson's former Harvard colleagues, evolutionary biologists Ernst Mayr and Stephen Jay Gould, used the word extensively in their scientific writings, and recent science journals carry articles with titles such as "Darwinism and Immunology" and "The Integration of Darwinism and Evolutionary Morphology."
The reason that "Darwinism" and "Darwinian" -- even "Darwinist" -- are used by modern evolutionary biologists is that they are more precise than "evolution" and "evolutionist." The latter have many meanings, most of them uncontroversial.
The OED has detected the use of the word Darwinism to refer to either to the poetry of Darwin's grandfather Erasmus Darwin, or else, presumably, Erasmus's belief in the development theory of evolution  (that all things are evolving to perfection, which is not natural selection theory). Here the first usage discovered by the OED is 1840:
.1840 Brit. & Foreign Rev. 10 105 The blank verse of Queen Mab differs little from that measure as it appears in the poems of Akenside, who exercised considerable influence over such poets as escaped from the popular vortex of Darwinism.'
And at the time of writing, the OED has the use of the modern meaning of the term Darwinism dated to Darwin's friend Thomas Huxley (AKA Darwin's Bulldog), who was apparently first to use the word Darwinism in this regard in 1860. Huxley used the word in his 1860 book review of Darwin's Origin of Species published in the Westminster Review,(see Darwin Online   ):
Huxley was apparently the first to coin the word "Darwinism" in 1860
And so we see that the OED is today accurate, if not when Wells wrote on the topic in 2007, with regards to the earliest discoverable use of the word Darwinism. Moreover, here Wells is right, because the term most certainly was not coined in a derogatory context for either Erasmus or Charles. .

So what of the Etymological Origins of the term Darwinist?

The Oxford English Dictionary OED (at the time of writing 23.11.15) has it that it means one or both of two things::
A follower of Charles Darwin; a person who accepts or promotes Darwinism (in scientific and extended use).
And the earliest date the so-called etymological "experts" at the OED can get back to for the word is:
"1864 J. Hunt tr. C. Vogt Lect. on Man xvi. 464 No Darwinist [Ger. Darwinist]," " if we must call them so, has either raised that question or drawn the above inference."
Once again BIgData-IDD gets us back further than the OED's experts
When it comes to the term Darwinist - no matter how it is used and perceived by different people today - the same BigData-DD method that found the data that re-wrote the history of the discovery of natural selection (Sutton 2014   ) allows us to uncover the fact that 'Darwinist' was, apparently, first coined - in 1861 in a Dutch Book entitled "The Agony of the Popes" by Edmond Lafond, and Adrianus J. Bemmel.    Here the context is somewhat supportive of Darwinism.
First coining of the word Darwinist by Edmond Lafond, and Adrianus J. Bemmel in 1861
As we can see in the image of the text below, where Vogt is quoted by James Hunt (1866), who two years earlier edited Vogt's 1864 book, which is simply the English translation of Vogt's 1863 original German version, the term Darwinist was used by Vogt in what is a fairly derogatory way. The term is used also, seemingly, in a rather begrudgingly way by Vogt, who seems reluctant to comply with using the prior-published group identifying label for Darwin's faithful followers. See Vogt in 1864    in English and in 1863 in the original German.    Perhaps this is because the German Vogt was not at all happy at the idea of natural selection. He certainly disliked its natural conclusions regarding the divergent ramifications of life, since they undermined his beliefs about species.
Vogt was, apparently, "first to be second" with the term Darwinist.
Natural selection was first explained by Patrick Matthew (1831) in his first book 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture' where he explained the origin of species being defined as those that ramified from but could no longer breed with a common ancestor, meant there were no different species of human beings - only different varieties. But Carl Vogt believed - contrary to the sound knowledge of Thomas Huxley on this topic - that Black people and White people are distinct species. Of course, Matthew knew the very same thing that Huxley later concluded as early as 1831 when he first published his original ideas on 'the natural process of selection'.
Thanks to Big Data analysis of the literature comprising the books scanned in the Google Library Project, we now know that - contrary to the beliefs of many Darwinists - the term used to name them was apparently originally penned in a book written in Dutch in 1861, where it was first coined in print as a compliment.
Patrick Matthew: The biological father of the theory of natural selection
Matthew took the original ideas of 1831 forward in his second book 'Emigration Fields' (Matthew 1839) where he recommended white British colonists interbreed with the Maori people of New Zealand and was apparently first to coin both the phrase and concept of the modern Peace Corps (here) .

See    for the full details of Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarism and the dreadful 'culture of concealment' dysology of Darwin's Darwinists on the topic since 1860 to the present day.

Saturday, 21 November 2015

ReTweet for Veracity Sake!

Tuesday, 17 November 2015

To Publish 100 Per Cent Veracity versus Ignoring a 'Stain upon the Silence'

My earliest remembered thoughts on the topic of this blog post began some years ago when I read a British Society of Criminology article entitled: 'Leaving a ‘Stain upon the Silence: Contemporary Criminology and the Politics of Dissent' by Paddy Hillyard*, Joe Sim, Steve Tombs † and Dave Whyte (here   ).
In that 2004 article, the authors noted how the British Home Office funding of certain types of research project aimed, ultimately, at reducing crime quickly with least cost, was diminishing the worth of others that adopted a more critically nuanced view of seeking a longer term solution focused on improving our understanding of both the underlying causes of crime and the various processes whereby offenders enter the criminal justice system. The authors argued that the issue they were raising was seen almost as academic taboo and that, increasingly, the British Home Office was facilitating the imposition of a narrow and pernicious research agenda - in our British universities - that was being funded and sanctioned by the state. They felt that the type of work that interested them most was being slowly silenced.
On which note, when I and my colleague Philip Hodgson first published our article 'The Problem of Zombie Cops in Voodoo Criminology' (Here   ). to show that the arithmetic and reasoning behind the widely cited Home Office claim - and effective orthodoxy - that beat policing was ineffective at preventing crime was nonsense on stilts, I was told by some colleagues, both in and outside my own university, including some very senior academics indeed that (a) I should desist and feel ashamed because I was promoting conspiracy-theory thinking (b) I was playing into the hands of the 'critical - cultural - criminology' school by giving them ammunition to throw at those who were seeking to promote what they describe as a more academically 'vigorous' policy-oriented, hard data driven, crime science (c) that I was wrecking my career chances because I would now be seen as a bitter and wrathful contrarian by those with whom I have worked and collaborated in the past.
Copyright Dr Mike Sutton 2012Used only with express written permission
The exact same arguments have been made regarding my later work on why the current criminological notion of 'crime opportunity' as a cause of crime is utter nonsense because its premises on what constitutes an opportunity and what represents a good causal explanation are 100% wrong. (See: Sutton 2015) .
Nullius in Verba
Stepping off the obvious path of criminology last year, I published a book in the field of evolutionary biology. In my book: Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret (here   ), I also absolutely 100% prove that current orthodox 'knowledge' about the history of discovery of natural selection is based on a set of myths that have - following my original research - been completely punctured by hard facts that prove them completely and absolutely untrue. As a result, I have been repeatedly told off for setting the mythical record straight on this topic with hard and, independently verifiable, newly discovered data. The telling off is based upon the reasoning that I should not have written this book because I am (a) giving ammunition to conspiracy theorists and (b) giving ammunition for creationists to throw at Darwinists. The fear of arming creationists with veracious facts comes from those who know the history of academic battle fighting in the American educational system against the teaching of divine species creationism as a compulsory subject or as science. (Sutton 2104).
My own experiences of being criticised by eminent academics for exposing and proposing a solution to tackle such stains upon the silence regarding hard facts in various areas of orthodox 'knowledge' must sit amongst a multitude of others - some probably far more serious and important - that began centuries ago with crimes of heresy, sedition and treason.
That today, following the 18th Century Age of Enlightenment that began in Europe, others - who should know better - still seek to silence veracious independently verifiable hard-fact-based knowledge. I think this is an area upon which we should now be shining an exposing spotlight. And to be absolutely clear, by that I mean we should be producing the evidence that shows who it is who has been making the stain upon the silence.
As the Founding Director of the Nottingham Centre for the Study and Reduction of Bias, Prejudice and Hate Crimes, I am aware of how allowing the teaching of absurdities might perhaps lead ultimately - along a spectrum of such'dysology'    (bad scholarship) - to the production of "academic atrocities". I think it might well also play a hand in facilitating violent atrocities. For example, according to many scholars, Adolph Hitler was convinced that the fictional book "The Protocols of Zion" was evidence of a genuine Jewish world domination conspiracy. That fallacious belief byHitler, combined with his pseudo-scientific notions of white Aryan supremacy, played no small part in the arguments made inside his own head and then conveyed to others for carrying out the Holocaust.
Hence, as a hate crimes scholar, I am interested in researching what may possibly be a process by which academic absurdities lead to violent irrationalism of the kind that happened in hit Paris this month.   
I am interested also in other areas where the exposure of stains upon the silence have been criticised.
I am currently reading "The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths about the Murder of Matthew Sheppard' (Here   ). The book (written by the gay journalist Stephen Jimenez) reveals considerable new, hard dis-confirming evidence for the orthodox criminological 'knowledge' that Matthew Shepard was the victim of a homophobic hate crime. Jimenez has been criticised by his detractors for denigrating the official story of the Matthew Shepard killing because the evidence he is presenting provides ammunition for the anti-hate crime lobby, because the Shepard killing was one of two recognised notorious hate crimes that led to the enactment of hate crime legislation in the USA.
One of my colleagues, Claire Cohen recently published a book on male rape: ' Male Rape is a Feminist Issue: Feminism, Governmentality and Male Rape' (Here   ). Her book has received some vitriolic reviews by some academics who argue that her subject matter and arguments draws attention and resources away from the area that they have sought so long and so hard to establish, which is to have rape of women taken more seriously, prosecuted more effectively and treated more fairly - ultimately, with an aim to reduce the currently high incidence and prevalence of rape of females.
In all these cases that I outline in this blog post, I take to my heart and mind the reasoning supplied by Stephen Jimenez for exposing the stain upon the silence about the Shepard killing. He tells us that as a gay man he deserves better than to have the case made for better protection of the rights of the gay community based upon what is in fact discoverable with facts to be a myth.


I am, therefore, seeking out, exposing and tackling stains upon the silence, because the arguments for covering them up are what actually makes them a stain upon the silence in the first place.

Monday, 9 November 2015