Perthshire Charles Darwin claims are 'so silly', claims leading international academic https://t.co/IRZZexPlLq @criminotweet #charlesdarwin— Michael Alexander (@C_MAlexander) May 17, 2016
Michael Alexander of the Scottish Courier reports that Dr John van Wyhe is "rubbishing" my discoveries, reported in my latest peer reviewed science article, without any academic arguments to support why he wishes the Scottish public to believe the discoveries are "not new", why they are "so silly" and why they are a "conspiracy theory".
In his full statement to the press, where he effectively engages in fact denial regarding the new discovery of routes of knowledge contamination, Dr Van Wyhe wrote:
'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.'
"Conspiracy theory" "Not new" "so silly" ? Really?
So are new facts that reveal the existence of routes of possible knowledge contamination between Matthew, Darwin and Wallace really not new, silly & a conspiracy theory?
Why would Dr van Wyhe deny the existence of 100 per cent proven, independently verifiable, newly discovered facts that completely overturn prior-knowledge beliefs in his field? Why write such a thing for public consumption about someone else's peer reviewed work? Is he "insanely jealous" or "wilfully ignorant"? What on Earth is the reason for such behaviour? Why deny the existence of 100 per cent proven newly discovered facts?
Does Dr John van Wyhe not release the serious social dangers of encouraging fact denial in history, science and in wider society?