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, 2 February 2016

Patrick Matthew and Richard Dawkins were Platform Blocked

19th Century platform blocking in the realm of contested knowledge

(Sutton 2014 pp. 58-59)

'..36 years after Matthew’s acknowledged discovery of the natural process of selection, the British Association, which was then meeting in Dundee on September 4th 1867 for its annual conference, was responsible for of one of the most shameful  examples of scholarly platform blocking in the history of modern science Matthew at the age of 77 years wanted to give a paper at the conference on his discovery of natural selection. We learn by way of his letter of complaint published in the Dundee Advertiser (Matthew, 1867) that he was thwarted.

Matthew wrote of his outrage that his paper, which had been placed  last on the programme, was seemingly blocked on the spurious grounds that there was insufficient time for him to read it. 

Although the British Association never did publish his paper it should perhaps not pass
unremarked that papers from the conference, which did end up in print, were published by John Murray of London (British Association, 1868) the very same publishing house of Darwin’s Origin of Species no less!'

Matthew's Published Letter was Addressed to the Editor of the Dundee Advertiser

Sir,— The conduct towards me of the soi-disant British Association for the Advancement of Science has been such that I consider it right to lay the subject before the public. I gave in to their Assistant-General Secretary nine papers to be read. Of these they rejected seven and admitted two, one of the latter, on Botany, I withdrew, as I thought it required the rejected to appear along with it. The other I did not withdraw, as it had an immediate importance, but which the Society managed, by delaying the reading till the last, not to read.

I will match the importance of these nine papers, in a national point of view, against all that was read at the Dundee meeting, of which the public will have an opportunity to judge. With regard one of these papers, on what is termed Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection, but which theory was published by me about thirty years before Darwin (honourably acknowledged in his last edition by Darwin), at a time when man was scarcely ready for such thoughts, I surely had the best right to be heard upon this subject. Yet others were allowed to speak upon it, and its parent denied to do so. Such is the conduct of a Society terming itself the British Association for the Advancement of Science.— l am, &c.,.

Gourdiehill, 12th Sept. 1867.'

Now in the 21st-century

Platform blocking of any kind is dangerous, because sometimes the 'majority view' is just plain silly and, at first, only a "crank" sees the obvious and significant "real facts" (here) that eventually break through.


 It is painfully ironic that Richard Dawkins, who is currently publishing pseudo-scholarly fact and context denying dysology about Patrick Matthew and the history of discovery of natural selection, finds himself victimized in the exact same way as Matthew was denied a platform. The difference being that Matthew wished to speak about his original discovery of natural selection - Dawkins merely wishes to discuss second-hand ideas about religion. Nevertheless, there is enough of a kind of painfully ironic justice in this injustice, I think. Particularly since Dawkins (2001) - using classic 'state of denial' tactics victim blames Matthew for not "trumpeting his discovery from the rooftops" -  and we can share this irony with the world.

It is almost akin to a natural law in criminology that victimization predicts victimization. In other words, where crime is concerned - be it to a person place or thing -  lightning more often strikes far more than just twice. This is so in the story of Matthew. Because he was multiply victimized:

2. Darwin's (1858 and 1859) plagiarism and his Gardener's Chronicle (1860) and Origin of Species (1861) glory theft lies.
3. Wallace's replicating plagiarism in his 1855 and 1858 papers.
4. The Dundee platform blocking at the 1867 meeting of the British Association for Advancement of Science.

Glory theft, victimized a fourth time, Matthew's right to stand before the scientific community and speak of his original discovery of natural selection was thwarted when he was disgracefully platform blocked by the British Association for Advancement of Science in 1868 (Sutton 2014a and 2014b).  Chambers was there - who cited Matthew's (1831) book in 1832. Wallace was there - who replicated Matthew's work in his 1855 Sarawak paper edited by Selby - who cited Matthew's book in 1842 - and further in his Ternate Paper of 1858 and therein replicated Matthew's natural selection hypothesis as well as his original natural versus artificial selection analogy of differences (here). And Lyell - Darwin's great friend and geological mentor - was there as guest of honour no less. 


  1. "Intelligent design" is the great stratagem of the religion defenders and deception was the success. Instead of evident nonsense of 6 day`s creation, atheists began to prove the heavy evolution science, and were cought at numerous difficulties. 6 days creation is the nonsense!

    1. Yes agreed. And they are still at it. We should, of course seek to understand rather than just condemn. I wonder if anyone has ever listed and created a typology all of their reasons for rejecting the evidence of natural selection?


Spam will be immediately deleted. Other comments warmly welcome.

On this blogsite you are free to write what you think in any way you wish to write it. However, please bear in mind it is a published public environment. Those who seek to hide behind pseudonyms may be exposed for who they actually are.

Anyone publishing threats, obscene comments or anything falling within the UK Anti-Harassment and the Obscene Communications Acts (which carry a maximum sentence of significant periods of imprisonment) should realise Google blogs capture the IP addresses of those who post comments. From there, it is a simple matter to know who you are, where you are commenting from, reveal your identity and inform the appropriate police services.