When the Scottish Journalist Michael Alexander of The Courier newspaper in Scotland asked Dr Sagan - Editor of the respected Polish philosophy of science journal "Philosophical Aspects of Origin" - if he knew why the esteemed Darwin scholar, Dr John van Wyhe, resigned from the Journal's Expert Advisory Board in the wake of the publication of my peer reviewed article (Sutton 2016) - that really does 100 per cent prove Darwin lied and 100 per cent proves that the world's leading Darwinists have been wrong for decades to claim that no naturalists read Patrick Matthew's prior publication of the full conception of macroevolution by natural selection - he received the following, statement to the press, reply by email a few days ago:
Dear Michael,It is true that Dr. John van Wyhe was the member of the Advisory Board of our journal and resigned from it shortly after Dr. Mike Sutton’s article had been published. However, he didn’t reveal his reasons. Obviously, Dr. van Wyhe was entitled to resign from the board at any point and we respect his decision. We are not especially eager to speculate on the topic of his resignation, but, of course, one of the possibilities is that it was related to the publication of the controversial article of Dr. Sutton. We had not explicitly stated earlier our editorial policy, as we believed it was clear to anyone who looked into the broad range of the articles published in the journal. As things stand now, our editorial policy has been published on our website in order to avoid misunderstanding: www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl
/index.php /en /editorial-policyWe adopt a Feyerabendian, pluralistic approach to knowledge and whenever it is possible, we publish articles presenting the views of various parties involved in a debate on a particular problem, provided they pass the reviewing process. For example, we have just published a critical review of Dr. Sutton’s book. This has been the case of every controversial concept, such as intelligent design or creationism, discussed in our journal. Thus, it should be clear that our journal’s aim is not to promote any particular view but that we are merely interested in enabling and facilitating an open debate on particular problems. We are aware, however, that this might prove unpopular in certain cases. It is our firm belief that a journal of philosophical character should adopt such approach and provide a venue for an open exchange of opinions.Sincerely,Dariusz Sagan
When Michael Alexander asked the esteemed Darwin scholar, Dr John van Wyhe, about the recent publication of my peer reviewed paper in the respected Polish philosophy of science journal "Philosophical Aspects of Origin" , he asked also whether it was merely a coincidence that he resigned from the journal - of which he has been a member for several years - in it's wake. Alexander then received the following, 'statement to the press' reply by email a few days ago:
Dear Michael,I resigned from the panel of the journal when I learned that they had misrepresented the nature of the journal when inviting me to join the panel. It was described as a journal about science and origins, when in fact the journal supports the creationist ideology called Intelligent Design. I had at any rate never had any further contact with them, so no content in the journal was ever seen by me before publication.Dr Sutton's allegations about a purported influence of Matthew on Darwin and Wallace are not new.This conspiracy theory is so silly and based on such forced and contorted imitations of historical method that no qualified historian could take it seriously.By the way, someone has just sent me a review of Sutton: http:
//www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl /images /FAG /2015.t.12 /art.10.pdfBest wishes,John van Wyhe
Readers should note the high levels of toxic irony in van Wyhe's behaviour.
Dr John van Wyhe condemns as 'a conspiracy theory' 'very silly and 'not new' the new, original and paradigm changing, independently verifiable, expert peer reviewed, (Sutton 2014a and also Sutton 2016) new discoveries of facts that prove the world's leading Darwinists and all their followers, such as he, are wrong to claim that no naturalists read Patrick Matthew's original ideas before Darwin and Wallace replicated them. But why? Is it, possibly (who knows?) from being trapped in an arrogantly deluded belief-cyle in his superior scholarship, Dr van Wyhe does not think it necessary, when commenting to the press upon the original research findings - arising from the original and scholarly endeavours of other academics - to distinguish between the apparent gross inferiority of what might be his own unevidenced and now debunked beliefs and the proven superiority of the independently verifiable, 100 per cent proven new facts that completely debunk them?
The "New Data" facts are that I originally discovered are in hidden publications in the dusty corners of the libraries of the world. This "New Data" bursts the myth that Patrick Matthew's original ideas were unread by anyone who could have influenced Darwin and Wallace with them pre-1858. Because what I have originally discovered is that, contrary to what the Darwin scholar scientific community has credulously bleated in their published work on this topic that "none whatsoever" read his original ideas before 1858, the proven fact of the matter is that seven naturalists did read Matthew's original ideas pre-1858. We know this as a new and proven fact because we only now newly know that they cited it in the literature! And let me be crystal clear about how original this bombshell discovery is. We only now know this as a 100 per cent proven fact, because I originally discovered this fact.
This "New Data" fact was first published in my book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret (Sutton 2014b). Moreover, I originally discovered that Darwin knew four of the seven naturalists who cited Matthews book pre-1858 and that three of them played major roles at the epicentre of influence and facilitation of the work of Darwin and Wallace and their influencer's influencers.
In light of this bombshell discovery, Dr van Wyhe announces to the Scottish press that the disconfirming facts are a "conspiracy theory". Furthermore, to add further, arguable, ludicrosity to his proven perished old rubber thimbled, arguable, incompetence to find the facts for himself, he apparently, I would argue, jealously seeks to deny these facts are facts by rubbishing the hi-tech Big Data method that found them.
Of course, these are uncomfortable, original, and completely new bombshell paradigm changing facts that van Wyhe and all other Darwin scholars missed in the literature. I suspect the green gilled google monster has bitten them. Why else would van Wyhe fall head first into creating what we might now call "The van Wyhe Reflex" by blaming the method for finding the facts that are so disturbing he cannot, apparently, even bear to acknowledge their existence in a peer reviewed science journal article upon which he is commenting?
The professionally embarrassing problem for Darwinites is that they were all using outdated silly little orange rubber thimbles to turn pages to look for evidence. My method is analogous to the non-expert who found the Staffordshire Hoard with a metal detector.
With respect, perhaps, according to his weirdly, arguably, jealous logic, Dr van Wyhe thinks the Staffordshire Hoard is similarly a mere silly conspiracy theory, because it was found by an unemployed amateur with a hi-tech metal detector, rather than by a salaried expert scratching around with a toothbrush in the same place as thousands before him?
I respectfully suggest that Dr John van Wyhe needs to learn the very clear difference between a conspiracy theory and his own biased sociological state of denial.
More tellingly, if he wishes to only now distance himself from the journal that published my article on the "New Data" facts why did van Wyhe send Michael Alexander a review of my book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret' that is published in the very same journal?
Could the reason for such apparently arguable palpable duplicity be because that review of my book is completely and disingenuously misleading?
The book review van Wyhe recommends is misleading because, writen by an ambitious PhD student, it takes just one minor finding from my book and presents that research as the book's main findings!
Anyone reading that review, who has read my book, or any of my peer reviewed articles on the topic, will be left in no doubt whatsoever that the actual "Darwin's greatest secret" that is exposed in my book is the newly discovered fact that seven naturalists actually cited Matthew's book in the literature pre-1858. And the next greatest secret the book review most weirdly leaves out is the detailed facts presented of Darwin's and Wallace's relationship with three of them!
Indeed, so wilfully misleading is that review of my book that I have been given a right to reply to it with the real facts.
The written defence of my work, revelations and criticisms of the pseudo scholarly dishonest responses to what has been newly discovered - and more besides - is now with Dr Sagan. He has informed me that it will be published in the forthcoming edition of Philosophical Aspects of Origin. My forthcoming response paper is entitled:
Perhaps, "going-forward" Dr John van Wyhe and other Darwinites will take the opportunity to explain themselves for misleading the public - via blatantly misleading fact denial statements to the Scottish press? Get the full details of their fact denial here.
Any serious and objective scholar, interested in understanding the historical context of the evolution of the discovery process from Matthew to Darwin, via Blyth should read Jim Dempster's 10th Wavertree Letter and my notes on the pseudo-scholarly historical scholarship of poor old Richard Dawkins and wilful ignorance of poor old John van Wyhe: Here.
A lesson in veracity about significant discovery for Dr John van Whye and others of similar uncomfortable-new-fact-denying ilk
It is a telling indictment of their limited abilities as self-proclaimed experts on the subject of all things Charles Darwin that neither Dr John van Wyhe, nor any other Darwin scholar in the World, has ever revealed, or discussed in print, Darwin’s serial published falsehoods, and their credulous parroting by esteemed Darwin scholars since. Instead, in the Darwinist literature, you will at best find these now newly proven falsehood have been dressed up and presented as the truth and then parroted by the likes of elite scientist scholars, such as the world’s leading Darwin scholars and Royal Society Darwin Medal winners, Sir Gavin de Beer and Ernst Mayr, for example. No wonder, then, that the likes of career Darwin scholar, John van Wyhe, do not wish you to know the actual facts.
Referring to the presentation of significant and neglected historic facts in this blog post - facts that are 100 per cent proven to exist because they are in the publication record - van Wyhe misled the Scottish press in a press statement on my 2016 peer reviewed articleby referring to the publication of these very same proven facts as a “conspiracy theory” and an imitation of “historical method”:
Dr Sutton's allegations about a purported influence of Matthew on Darwin and Wallace are not new.
This conspiracy theory is so silly and based on such forced and contorted imitations of historical method that no qualified historian could take it seriously.
It appears that Dr van Wyhe is claiming that it is a “forced” “imitation of historical method” to find the data he failed to find?
Dr van Wyhe must, it appears, think, therefore, that it is a conspiracy theory and “imitation of the historical method’ for me to present – chronologically – as I do below, with no comment whatsoever in that presentation, other than to underlines the relevant text in order to more easily allow the reader to see that it proves for itself, that:
(1) Darwin lied in 1860 by denying that any naturalist had read Matthew’s original ideas before 1858
(2) Darwin told the same lie in a letter to an influential French naturalist
(3) Darwin told the same lie again in the Origin of Species from 1861 (third and every subsequent edition) until the day he died.
(4) The most expert and esteemed Darwin scholars in the World credulously parroted those same lies.
(5) On the evidence we have so far, it does indeed seem, that neither Dr John van Whye not any other member of the de facto pseudo-scholarly and so-called “Darwin Industry” wish the public to be aware of these facts.
Please note: what follows is not evidence of any kind a conspiracy. Instead, it is simply evidence that Darwin scholars appear to be greedily lining their pockets at the expense of the truth.
A simple chronological presentation of significant and neglected historic facts that prove Darwin lied about the prior readership of Matthew’s discover and that Darwin’s same lies have been credulously parroted ever since by the world’s Darwin Scholars
John Loudon, the famous botanist naturalist, reviewed Patrick Matthew’s (1831) book ‘On Naval Timber and Arboriculture’, which is now acknowledged by the world’s leading Darwinists to contain the first publication of the full conception of macro evolution by natural selection. See: Gardener’s Magazine 1832, vol. VIII, p. 703.
'One of the subjects discussed in this appendix is the puzzling one, of theorigin of species and varieties; and if the author has hereon originated no original views (and of this we are far from certain), he has certainly exhibited his own in an original manner.'
Patrick Matthew (1860): 1st open letter to Charles Darwin in the Gardener's Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette 7 April 1860, pp. 312-313 Reveals that the famousnaturalist botanist John Loudon Reviewed Matthew's book.
'This discovery recently published by Mr. Darwin turns out to be what I published very fully... as far back as January 1, 1831... reviewed in numerous periodicals, so as to have full publicity... by Loudon …and repeatedly in the United Service Magazine for 1831 etc.'
Charles Darwin (1860): Reply to Patrick Matthew in the Gardeners’ Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette 21 April 1860, no. 16, pp. 362-363
‘I think that no one will feel surprised that neither I, nor apparently any other naturalist, had heard of Mr Matthew’s views…’
Patrick Matthew (1860): 2nd open letter. Reply to Charles Darwin in the Gardener's Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette 12 May 1860, p. 433
'He is however wrong in thinking that no naturalist was aware of the previous discovery. I had occasion some 15 years ago to be conversing with a naturalist, a professor of a celebrated university, and he told me he had been reading my work Naval Timber, but that he could not bring such views before his class or uphold them publicly from fear of the cutty-stool, a sort of pillory punishment… It was at least in part this spirit of resistance to scientific doctrine that caused my work to be voted unfit for the public library of the fair city itself. The age was not ripe for such ideas…’
Charles Darwin (1861) , Letter to Quatrefages de Bréau, J. L. A. De. 25 April :
‘…an obscure writer on Forest Trees, in 1830, in Scotland, most expressly & clearly anticipated my views — though he put the case so briefly, that no single person ever noticed the scattered passages in his book…’
Charles Darwin, (1861) ‘On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life’, 3rd ed:
'Unfortunately the view was given by Mr. Matthew very briefly in scattered passages in an Appendix to a work on a different subject, so that it remained unnoticed until Mr. Matthew himself drew attention to it in The Gardeners’ Chronicle, on April 7th, 1860. 95'
Gavin de Beer (1962), “The Wilkins Lecture: The Origins of Darwin’s Ideas on Evolution and Natural Selection”, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. vol. 155, no. 960, pp. 321-338.
‘…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.'
Ernst Mayr (1982), The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution and Inheritance, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, p. 499
‘The person who has the soundest claim for priority in establishing a theory of evolution by natural selection is Patrick Matthew … His views on evolution… neither Darwin nor any other biologist had ever encountered them until Matthew bought forward his claims in an article in 1860 in The Gardeners’ Chronicle'
Apparently, it would be catastrophic for the Darwin Industry were any of Darwin scholars to admit the truth that, at least from 1860, when he knew the truth of who really did read Matthew’s bombshell ideas, before he replicated them and claimed them as his own independent conceptions, that Darwin was a science fraudster. But he was. Because, as you can see from his own words above, when he knew the very opposite to be true, that Charles Darwin lied in order to bury the fact of Matthew’s prior influence on Loudon (who then edited Blyth’s influential work). That fact makes Darwin a lying plagiarizing glory thief from 1860 onward. Because, by so lying, he succeeded in convincing the world that Matthew could not possibly have influenced him or any other naturalist before 1858.
What appears to have got Darwin scholars, such as van Wyhe, hopping mad is that, besides discovering Loudon was in fact a naturalist well known to Darwin and his friends, I have also newly and originally discovered a further six naturalists who also read Matthew’s original ideas and cited his 1831 book before 1858!
One of these other six naturalists, Selby, then went on to be editor of Wallace’s (1855) famous Sarawak Paper on evolution! Moreover, Selby was a friend of Charles Darwin’s father, and of Darwin’s close friend Leonard Jenyns. Furthermore, Selby and Darwin sat on many scientific committees together. Another of these six citing naturalists is Robert Chambers. After reading Matthew’s book and citing it in 1832, Chambers went on to meet with Darwin, was a correspondent of his and is famously acknowledged for the book he wrote after citing Matthew’s book.
Chambers's famous book – The Vestiges of Creation - is said to have “put evolution in the air’ in the first half of the 19th century. Wallace said Chambers was his greatest influence. Famously despising Chartists (Matthew was a Chartist leader in Scotland and wove his seditious politics in with his theory of natural selection) Chambers, like many other wealthy naturalist gentlemen of science of the time, had many a good reason not to cite Matthew’s influence on natural selection I(this is covered at length and fully evidenced in my book - Sutton 2014)
Far more details, new discoveries and a fully evidenced and fully referenced, discussion of the context of how these and other naturalists were definitely, and others easily could have been, influenced by Matthew is all covered in my 2016 article, which, apparently, Dr John van Wyhe does not wish you or any other member of the public to read.
Instead of being punterized by Dr van Wyhe’s arguably silly nonsense about these newly discovered fact being "silly", why not do what he, arguably, would rather you did not. Why not actually read my peer reviewed science article for yourself here (Sutton 2016). Then you can make up your own mind. If you read it, you will find in that article where I present the chronologically ordered published facts of Darwin’s 100 per cent proven lies, along with further significant and original new evidence of the fact that John Loudon went on to edit two of Edward Blyth’s most influential papers on the topic of organic evolution.
HELP FOR Dr JOHN van WYHE
With respectful good humour, perhaps Darwin scholars having difficulty grasping the new topics of "knowledge contamination" and Darwin's plagiarising science fraud, might benefit from reading a book like "History of Natural Selection for Dummies". Since no such easy-reader is currently available, in the spirit of scholarly goodwill, I have made three special flash cards.
The cards below are intended to be cut out and pasted onto some card. It is recommend that they are then sealed by pasting some varnish, or at least some PVA glue, over the card. Several coats will be sufficient to provide a reasonable seal against stains from academic blood sweat and tears.
Armed with these three cards, the student of good scholarship can then begin to learn how to tell the painful difference between a fully evidenced fact and their mere biased opinion that the fact has, in fact, debunked.
You will see I have used red ink to help to make the facts, Dr John van Wyhe thinks are "a conspiracy theory" as clear as possible for his arguably biased brain to try to comprehend.
My book "Nullius in Verba" contains a further seven of Darwin's lies. If Dr van Wyhe buys it he will be able to fashion seven more cards to complete the set of 10.