Sir Gavin de Beer (FRS), Royal Society Darwin Medal winner, wrote in the Wilkins Lecture for the Royal Society (de Beer 1962 on page 333):
"...William Charles Wells and Patrick Matthew were predecessors who had actually published the principle of natural selection in obscure places where their works remained completely unnoticed until Darwin and Wallace reawakened interest in the subject.'
100 per cent proven and independently verifiable dis-confirming facts:
Please note. You can read more on the concept of knowledge contamination and further details regarding the "real facts" of the history of discovery of natural selection: here.
The independently verifiable newly discovered facts that prove the above information 100 per cent correct can be found in my book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret.
A psychology study ( Nyhan et al 2014) reveals that new facts, which debunk old myths, are most likely to be rejected when the “real facts” undermine beliefs strongly linked to a sense of identity. Darwinists – named for Darwin – fit this description more than most.
Darwinists are currently unable to accept the newly discovered 100 % proven facts that Darwin lied and the facts that those he knew in fact read and cited Matthew’s (1831) book before he replicated the original ideas in it. This would explain why the statistical geneticist Mike Weale, in defence of Darwin, seeks to re-define the dictionary definition of originate (so a replicator becomes the originator of what is replicated), why plain lies (where Darwin wrote the very opposite to what he was told by Matthew in order to convince the world of his lie that Matthew’s original ideas went unread before he replicated them) are not classed by Weale as lies. It explains also why Mike Weale absolutely refuses to accept the 100 % proven fact that Matthew originated the explanatory analogy of differences between natural and artificial selection that both Darwin and Wallace also replicated. He even denies it is an analogy – in the teeth of the Oxford dictionary definition of what constitutes an analogy can be an analogy of differences.
Of course, being named for the proven lying plagiarist Darwin, Nyhan et al's research would predict Darwinists will continue to deny the facts, because the facts completely undermine their sense of identity as traditionally Darwin worshiping evolutionary biologists. Once Darwinists admit to the veracity of the "real facts" and to the fact that the academic community has been promoting myths about the readership of Matthew's original ideas - myths started, incidentally, by Darwin, then, like a stack of dominoes when just one is removed, the entire Darwin Worship Industry will fall into intellectual disgrace.
It’s all rather perturbing. But at least Darwinists are not alone when it comes to "real fact" denial and the reasons for it.