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

Thursday, 31 March 2016

Dempster's (1996) Earlier Draft of His Chapter 7: 'Charles Darwin's Predecessors'

From the Dempster Family Archive.

The following 13 images are page scans from loose pages that essentially comprise a good earlier draft of Chapter Seven of Dempster's (1996) Evolutionary Concepts in the 19th Century. Anyone comparing this draft with the final product might smile at the typical diplomacy that characterised how Dempster toned his true feelings down between drafts and print. In the final paragraph of Chapter 7 of his published book gone are the harsh words of telling speculation about there being no evidence of Darwin being pretty dim whilst studying at Edinburgh University. 

This material, from the Dempster Private Family Archive, is released into the public domain because it might be of profound interest to any Darwin scholars who have not yet read any of Dempster's superb evidence-led criticism of Darwin's dual lack of originality and abundance of sly self-celebratory dishonesty. Moreover, I expect it may be of value to those interested in studying how Dempster felt compelled to make his criticisms of Darwin more palatable to the scientific mainstream, which some call the "scientific establishment".

Dempster's Letter to New Scientist about Darwin's Apparent Belief in "the Creator"

A designer or a "Creator", what is the difference? So asked Jim Dempster in 1996.

The clipping below is from the Dempster family archive:New Scientist 12th October 1996.

Jim Dempster proves that Darwin apparently believed in a "Creator". Dempster then used that observation to make the point that that this meant Darwin apparently believed in "intelligent design".

Wednesday, 30 March 2016

Dempster's Letter to the Times about Dennett and Darwin's Dangerous Idea

This clipping below is from the Dempster family archive. There is no date on it. It is from the letters page of the Sunday Times.

In the letter, below, Jim Dempster mocks a review of Daniel Dennett's book "Darwin's Dangerous Idea' for his ill-informed infatuation with Charles Darwin.

The date of the letter will most certainly have been 1996, because that is the year Dennett's book was first published.

W J Dempster: on 'The Consequences of Punctuated Equilibrium'

The following pages are scanned from the private family archive of the Dempster family. They were first made available to me today (30th March 2016). The scanned text comprises two pages of typed notes and an article on the topic of  Matthew's original conception of the role played by "punctuated equilibrium" in Matthew's original and full hypotheses of macro-evolution by natural selection.

PLEASE NOTE Copyright for the images on this blog post belongs to Soula Dempster (all UK, USA and international rights reserved).

W. J. - (William James)  "Jim" Dempster wrote three books on the history of discovery of natural selection. You can read more about his life and work in science, medicine and surgery here.

The subject of this blog post is Dempster's unpublished draft paper, in the form of an 11 page essay entitled: "The Consequences of Punctuated Equilibrium" . The paper bears no date, However, it was definitely written after the 1996 publication of his second book on Matthew (Dempster, W. J 1996 Evolutionary Concepts in the Nineteenth Century. Edinburgh. The Pentland Press. Because it references that book. 

The  essay appears to be a possible draft forerunner to Chapter 6, which is called The Consequences of Punctuated Equilibria, of Dempster's third book on the topic of the history of the discovery of natural selection:  Dempster, W. J. (2005) The Illustrious Hunter and the Darwins. Sussex. Book Guild Publishing.'  Alternatively, it may be a later - "improved" - version of the same. Consequently, at the time of writing, we have no idea whether this paper was intended for publication as a paper or book chapter, or merely written as a private essay. However, it is described as an "article" in Dempster's letter 5 to Ian Hardie in the "Wavertree Letters" on this blogsite.

Readers should bear in mind that what they are looking at when reading the scanned pages of Dempster's essay is that the work may have been "in progress", for private circulation among peers for comments, or else merely intended for private scholarship purposes. The fact that the last sentence of the first of two pages attached to this essay says: "Now read chapter 7 of my book" suggests that Dempster's text in this blog post is an expanded version of his 2005 published Chapter 6. Moreover, unlike the 2005 Chapter Six, from which it appears to have evolved, this essay refers to "Darwinists", which is not a tone that is characteristic of Dempster's published work, Furthermore, it  harshly notes the bias and ignorance of Darwinists about Matthew's and Darwin's work in this precise area. Most importantly, Dempster's essay deals with the fact that Darwin (1859), but not Matthew (1831), included and embraced the notion of a "creator" at work in the natural process of selection. I am delighted to learn that Dempster noted this fact - ignored by Biased Darwin scholars - because it is one that I emphasise in my book (Sutton 2014).

The following two typed pages were attached to the draft article.

- Dempster's Unpublished Essay - 

Any commentary, in the comments section below, on Dempster's unpublished essay and/or my observations and conjectures regarding it is warmly welcomed.

Jim Dempster's Handwritten Notes on Darwin's Sly Deceptions in the Origin of Species

Dempster (1985) reasoned with a multitude of his own evidence that Patrick Matthew should be hailed as the true discoverer of natural selection, simply because he most certainly did more than merely enunciate it, he worked it out and published it in detail as a complex and fully comprehensive law of nature. Moreover, Matthew got it right and Darwin wrong when it came to comprehending the impact of geological disasters on species extinction and emergence. Yet, from the third edition of the Origin onwards, Darwin (1861), a follower of Lyell’s erroneous uniformitarianism, jumped at the chance to denigrate Matthew by slyly inferring that he was a (then to be fashionably ridiculed) catastrophist. The following is from Darwin's 1861 Third Edition of the Origin of Species (p. xv):

The differences of Mr. Matthew's view from mine are not of much importance: he seems to consider that the world was nearly depopulated at successive periods, and then re stocked; and he gives, as an alternative, that new forms may be generated “without the presence of any mould or germ of former aggregates,” I am not sure that I understand some passages; but it seems that he attributes much influence to the direct action of the conditions of life. He clearly saw however the full force of the principle of natural selection.'

Dempster (1996) made this part of Darwin's cleverly subtle muck slinging injustice abundantly clear, but if you can find a Darwinist, or any other biologist, admitting as much and citing Dempster then you've found one more than I have. In effect, Darwin was signifying Matthew as among all the outdated believers in the miracle of Noah's Ark! And yet Matthew believed in no such thing. Matthew simply explained natural selection in terms of what is today called 'Punctuated Equilibrium' – which is, then, essentially Matthew’s discovery. Punctuated Equilibrium is accepted science today. However, Dempster (1995; 2005) noted that its Darwinist purveyors sought to keep the originator of that theory buried in footnote oblivion. Rampino (2011) explains some of the detail.

Dempster wrote that there is no need to accuse Darwin of plagiarising the work of Patrick Matthew because it is already well established that he acted badly in not citing his influencers in the first edition and other editions of the Origin of Species (Dempster, 1983 p. 64):

‘Patrick Matthew and Robert Chambers carried out their great tasks single- handed. Without the help on the one hand of his great wealth and on the other of Hooker, Lyell, Lubbock, Blyth, Wallace and many others, it is doubtful whether Darwin, single-handed, could have avoided making a botch of his theory or even whether he could have, had the Origin published. Even so, in spite of all the outside help, he retreated more and more towards Lamarckism.

There is no need to charge Darwin with plagiarism. His scholarship and integrity were at fault in not providing all his references in the Origin: he had after 1859 another twenty years in which to do so. What one can say is that denigration of Patrick Matthew was unwarrantable and inexcusable.’

Darwinist muck-slinging began after Darwin capitulated to Matthew in the Gardener's Chronicle of 1860

The image below was kindly sent to me by Jim Dempster's daughter Soula Dempster. The red handwriting is her father's. He annotated a copy of the historical sketch in Darwin's Origin of Species, Dempster's copy of the sketch is from the 1872 edition but its the same as that fistpubihed in 1861 from the third edition of the Origin onwards:

Dempster's notes on Darwin's sly Deceptions in the Origin of Species 

Note where Dempster writes "½ sentence missing!". Dempster has spotted that Darwin slyly misled his readers that Matthew believed something, which the facts prove Matthew clearly did not. Note that Dempster writes: "Matthew rejects this in the missing part!"

Because Darwin slyy concealed the context and completeness of Matthew's work, I respectfully disagree with Dempster's view that there is no need to accuse of Darwin of plagiarism. I think that there most certainly is a need to directly name Darwin as a plagiariser, and to do so in no uncertain terms, because, by lying, wriggling, plagiarising  science fraud - by glory theft necessity after 1860 (see Sutton 2016)- Darwin showed only a half a sentence of Matthew's work in order to so deliberately mislead his readership into thinking Matthew simply believed that the population of life was somehow miraculously "re-stocked". 

What matthew actually wrote:

Page 383 of  Matthew (1831) 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture'
Note - most importantly - Matthew's entire first paragraph on page 383 of his book is one long sentence. The first eight words that darwin left out of his explanation of Matthew's original conception of natural selection are crucial to Darwin's devious dishonest portrayal of Matthew as believing only that some form of complex species creation occurred on Earth after a catastrophic extinction event. 

Matthew wrote: 

So what was the "above" that Darwin concealed in his dishonest portrayal? Amongst a great wealth of additional text, but immediately above page 383, -  it is this:

Matthew (1831) p. 381

Readers should note also that Dempster's red ink annotations note that it is very important how Matthew's ideas are different to those of Darwin "Oh yes they are!"  also that  Dempster notes that it is untrue "Not true" that Matthew's original conception of natural selection was contained in a book of an unrelated title and solely in the scattered pages of the book's appendix.  Those Darwinist myths are completely burst - with hard disconfirming evidence - in  my 2014 book "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret", which - in addition - contains a wealth of original and newly discovered hard and independently verifiable facts that overturn the old paradigm that no one known to Darwin or Wallace read Matthew's original ideas before each replicated them, without citing Matthew - and then excused that unscholarly behaviour by claiming (fallaciously) - and by outright proven lying in Darwin's case - that none read those ideas before 1860. My book is dedicated to Jim Dempster.

You can read more about the work and life of the pioneering surgeon and human organ transplant scientist Jim Dempster Here.

Jim Dempster

Monday, 28 March 2016

Nottingham Post Story on the New Data

Jeremy Lewis: Feature writer, Nottingham Post

Today the Nottinghamshire Post feature writer Jeremy Lewis reported on the significance of the enormity of the 2014 bombshell discoveries about the Matthewian 'knowledge contamination' of Darwin's and Wallace's replications of his prior-published theory.

Origins of Charles Darwin evolutionary theory challenged by Nottingham academic

Read more: 

Monday, 21 March 2016

On Knowledge Contamination


In the public interest, I have been compelled to write a professionally reviewed essay in response to online obscene and misogynistic abuse, other abuse and claims, which have  been submitted to the Scottish press, about my expert and independently peer-reviewed scholarly science journal publication of my original research findings. You can read it here (Sutton 2016).

On Knowledge Contamination: New Data Challenges Claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Independent Conceptions of Matthew’s Prior-Published Hypothesis

My latest peer reviewed paper on the the New Data can be read by clicking this link: Here

The 100 per cent proven facts in this peer reviewed paper, are published in a Polish philosophy journal Filozoficzne Aspekty Genezy, Philosophical Aspects of Origin. Moreover, the esteemed Darwinist Senior Lecturer on the history of science, Dr John van Wyhe, was on the journal's academic expert advisory board before, at the time this paper was submitted, during its peer review process, and also immediately after it was published. Soon after, for some reason unknown to me, he resigned that position. Notably, van Wyhe had been on the Advisory Board of the journal since at least 2014, as evidenced by his name in it here.

My paper

(1) 100 per cent proves that the world's leading Darwin Scholars - and others - were 100 per cent wrong to write that the original ideas in Matthew's book went uread by biologists and anyone else before Darwin and Wallace replicated them. Because it is newly 100 per cent proven that - as opposed to the prior-Darwinist myth that none - seven other naturalists in fact did cite, in the published 19th century literature, Matthew's book and the original ideas in it pre-1858.

(2) 100 per cent proves that after 1860 Darwin lied by writing the very opposite to what Matthew had already informed him about the readership of his book.

Illogical and irrational pseudo scholars might think that it is unscientific for me to write that it is 100 proven that something is true. But any making such a claim as to the unscientific nature of my claims are confusing two very distinctly different things. Quite rightly, it is not the language of scientists to write that a hypothesis is 100 per cent proven or not. However, no rational scientist would deny that it is 100 proven that the New Data - which is the published words inside newly re-discovered published 19th century books and journals - is 100 per cent proven to exist.

In the Carse of Gowrie Scotland

Last week I delivered the results of my latest research paper at the James Hutton Institute in Scotland. The Dundee Courier reported on the event.

English academic says Scots farmer could be true origin of Charles Darwin’s most famous theory


A Mr Derry, who claims to represent Edinburgh University, wrote what he calls an "open letter" to several of my associates in Scotland and to the Dundee Courier. Abstracts from his letter, a jumble of unsubstantiated rantings about me, were published in the Courier. One of his many weird criticisms of what I have written is that it is not the language of scientists to say that something is 100 proven. Here he weirdly mistakes the fact that one would not ordinarily say that evidence for a hypothesis 100 per cent proves or disproves it with the way anyone would say that the words they are reading in any publication - historic or brand new - are 100 per cent proven to exist on the page they are reading. My original new discoveries 100 per cent prove that - as opposed the old Darwin scholar story that none read Matthew's ideas before 1859 - in fact seven cited his book in the literature, four were known to Darwin and three played major roles at the epicentre of influence and facilitation of the pre-1859 work of Darwin and Wallace on organic evolution. Mr Derry’s letter also complained very specifically that the new facts were discovered with Google. By analogy, his weird logic in that regard appears to be that the Staffordshire Hoard is somehow less of a valuable archaeological discovery because it was found with a high-tech metal detector rather than a toothbrush.

Darwin academic accused of ‘poor and lazy research’


I responded to Derry's rabid and totally unevidenced rantings with a letter to the courier that included a link to the page on this blog where Mr Derry's use of the foulest of foul language in published social media communications can be read. The Courier responded appropriately

Academic accused of ‘weirdly closed mind’ as Perthshire Charles Darwin row continues


The existence of  Mr Derry's rabid frustration in the teeth of the evidence - when asked to put his name to his angry social media rants against the hard evidence - is 100 per cent proven - something he believes cannot be a scientific statement. I suggest he try an experiment. The experiment involves putting his hand over the tweet below and removing it 100 times. The experimenter should record when the tweet exists and when it ceases to exist. If it ever ceases to exist when the hand covering it is removed then rational people would surely agree that is disconfirming evidence for my claim that it is 100 per cent proven to exist. In that regard, Mr Derry's use of the misogynistic  "C" word exists as much as the newly discovered published proof in the literature that naturalists known to Darwin cited Matthew's book before Darwin replicated Matthew's ideas and explanatory examples without citing their source.

On learning that the proven evidence of his grossy offensive misogynist use of obscene language in the published public arena of the Internet had been forensically captured, sent to the Dundee Courier as hard evidence of his personality and actual misconduct, and then published in the Courier - to the immense public shame of himself and  Edinburgh University-  Mr Derry - who sent his irrational ranting "open letter" to the Courier via an Edinburgh University email account had the following to say on Twitter:

Perhaps Mr Derry does not think that publishing anything - unprofessional and obscene language or lies, or what will later be discovered in the publication record - has consequences? Perhaps  he really does believe that what is published does not 100 per cent prove that it really does exist? I wonder if his department at Edinburgh University would agree? And when they find out, I wonder what kind of apology they will think he deserves and for what exactly?

Perhaps Mr Derry, of Edinburgh University, weirdly thinks that I should apologise for originally discovering, recording and then disseminating the painfully disconcerting bombshell proof of Darwin's lies, and the truth of the poor scholarship of the world's leading Darwin scholars, and having it all peer-reviewed and then published in a scholarly journal?

You can see the context of more of Mr Derry's  immortally embedded tweets here.

POSTSCRIPT 27th March 2016

In its online page only, the Dundee Courier published the opinions of a Dr Neil Peterson (Botanist) that my 2104 book Nullius was "self published".  In fact, the devastating new facts are neither self nor vanity published, they are published by the professional publisher Thinker Books. Had Dr Peterson bothered himself to read so much as the first page of my book - on which he deems himself expert enough to write to the papers about its bomshel contents - he would have known that fact. He would have known also that - contrary to the nonsense he has written - I do not claim to have any kind of theory. Moreover, Dr Neil Peterson would know that I claim the new facts about who they knew who cited Matthew's ideas pre 1858 - do not prove Darwin and Wallace copied Matthew's ideas directly, but that they do (along with a host of other newly discovered facts) establish beyond reasonable doubt that Darwin's and Wallace's indirect and direct knowledge of those ideas, is now - rationally - more likely than not.

I respectfully suggest that Dr Peterson's time would be better spent reading the New Facts rather than writing in total ignorance to the press to start new Darwinist myths about me. Following my complaint to the Editor, the Courier deleted the words "self published" from their online article. You can read it:


Clearly, the devastating absolute enormity of the New Data will bring more desperate Darwin worshipping fact deniers into the public gaze. But these new facts will out, no matter how desperately Darwinists seek to bury them under lies and fallacies.

Summary and Conclusions

Surpassing the failure of traditional Darwin scholar rubber thimble paper turning in the libraries of the world, the cutting edge high technology of the Google library project, of some 35 million searchable publications, enabled me to originally discover facts that 100 per cent prove Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace fallaciously claimed that no one read Matthew's prior-published discovery and explanatory examples of natural selection before they replicated both. And the "New Facts" 100 per cent prove it, because the proof is in the previously undiscovered 19th century printed words in publications that absolutely prove Matthew's book, and the original ideas in it, were cited by influential naturalists known both to them and their influencers, before they replicated those same ideas - claiming they alighted upon them independently of Matthew's prior publication of the same. Darwin would later fallaciously excuse himself from 1860 onward by claiming those ideas were unread before he and Wallace replicated them. Darwin is 100 per cent proven to have lied in that regard, because he wrote that lie after Matthew had informed him of two influential naturalists who read and understood his original ideas, and their significance, and that his book had been banned, because of those same bombshell ideas, by Perth Public Library in Scotland.

As the 100 per cent proven newly discovered facts of Darwin's lies and the newly discovered fact that - as opposed to none at all - several naturalists actually cited Matthew's original ideas before 1858 receive more publicity we should expect more weirdly closed minded and irrational ranting Darwin scholars to seek to deny the facts that prove they have bet their entire careers on a newly proven lying plagiarist, whose friends, influencers and influencers influencers in fact did read and then cite, in the newly re-discovered 19th century published literature, the original bombshell ideas in Matthew's (1831) book. And it is a 100 proven fact that they did so years before Darwin replicated them without citing their originator Patrick Matthew.

POSTSCRIPT 20/April 2016

More on this issue on my Best Thinking blog here:

Tuesday, 15 March 2016

Why the Dundee Courier is the ideal newspaper to print the truth about Patrick Matthew and Charles Darwin

Today the Scottish newspaper the Dundee Courier reports on the discovery of Charles Darwin's plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's prior-published discovery - and cites my BestThinking book that first broke the news to the World: Read the story in the Dundee Courier here   .
Mike Alexander is the first journalist I've encountered who actually admits it is a complex topic, which journalists need to get to grips with in order to get the "real facts" straight. He kept asking me (several emails between us and a long phone call) for loads of cast iron proof from the actual published 19th century publication record, and so I just kept on sending it. Now that's old-school journalistic integrity. I hope Michael Alexander goes far. I expect he will.
Most Interestingly, Alexander informed me that the Dundee Courier swallowed up the old Dundee Advertiser. Notably, it was in the latter newspaper that published many of Matthew's important letters in the 19th century.

Monday, 14 March 2016

Patrick Matthew: Priority and the discovery of natural selection

Wikipedia administrators are systematically deleting the significant fact that Darwin is a proven serial lying, glory stealing science fraudster by glory theft.

RationalWiki publishes the newly discovered hard facts Wikipedia wishes to keep from the wider public. Here.

Saturday, 12 March 2016

Knowledge Contamination: A Hammer for the Scots!

Building on the New Data first revealed in my Best Thinking book,Nullius in Verba    and further ideas first formulated in a Best Thinking blog post in Jan 2015, my very latest peer reviewed journal article was published on the topic yesterday.
On Knowledge Contamination: New Data Challenges Claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Independent Conceptions of Matthew’s Prior-Published Hypothesis. Here.   
Charles Darwin's statue. Natural History.Museum. London
In this new article, in the philosophy of science journal:Philosophy Aspects of Origin, I prove, amongst many other things, that rather than prove his independent conception of Matthew's original ideas and examples, Darwin's private correspondence, notebooks and private essays all serve to incriminate him as a lying plagiarizing science fraudster by glory theft of Patrick Matthew's prior published hypothesis of the "natural process of selection".
I am presenting this paper on thursday 17th March 2016, next week, at the James Hutton Institute in Scotland. Details here.   
My hammering conclusion - which is to be reported in the Scottish press next week - is that Scotland has been punterized by 155 years of English lies, fallacies and myths that underpin the current paradigm of Darwin's and Wallace's independent conceptions of Matthew's prior-published hypothesis.

Scotland has an unrecognised science hero.
The Carse of Gowrie
Matthew, like many influential and original thinking Scots, hailed from the fertile lands of the beautiful Carse of Gowrie. Punterised by Darwin's 100 per cent proven lies    into believing Matthew is relatively insignificant in the story of the discovery of natural selection, the Scots demolished his manor house in the 1980s.
Gourdie Hill, in the Carse of Gowrie. Seat of Patrick Matthew Esq.
That act of unintentional cultural vandalism raised to the ground their opportunity to use it and its ancient orchards as a major heritage site for cultural and economic sustainability. However, Matthew's monumental giant redwood trees    remain in the area. Today, in the interests of economic and cultural sustainability, it is essential that Scotland places protection orders on these historic Matthew Trees.
Scots need to read the new data and weigh its significance for themselves.
Fiona Ross, chair of The Carse of Gowrie Sustainability Group which has organised next Thursday’s lecture informs Scotland that a dream of Matthew’s descendants would be to see his portrait on the back of a Scottish £10 note.
Nottingham artist, photographer and criminologist - Andy SuttonAttribution
One day Scotland will have Patrick Matthew on the back of it's £10 note.

Thursday, 10 March 2016

My James Hutton Institute Lecture on 100 Per Cent Proof of Darwin's Lying Plagiarising Glory Thieving Science Fraud

Carse of Gowrie Sustainability Group presents An Evening Lecture

17 March 2016, 6.30pm
at the James Hutton Institute, Invergowrie, Dundee DD2 5DA
for the general public, anyone interested in local history, horticulturists
Image of the Carse of Gowrie taken near Kinnoull Tower, Perthshire
During National Science Week 2016 the Carse of Gowrie Sustainability Group are delighted to have collaborated with the James Hutton Institute to host an evening lecture with Dr Mike Sutton from Nottingham Trent University, the leading expert and published author on Matthew’s scientific legacy. He is also working with Matthew’s descendants in New Zealand, Germany and the US to gain better recognition for his work. It will be held at the James Hutton Institute in Invergowrie.
Dr Sutton will discuss Patrick Matthew's, Carse of Gowrie landowner, farmer and fruit grower who outlined the natural selection in fruit trees, almost 30 years before Charles Darwin published his theory
The talk starts at 7.15pm with light refreshments available from 6.30pm.
Booking via Eventbrite is essential as numbers are strictly limited. Password: Matthews 2016
For further information about any of the above, please visit or email on

Wednesday, 9 March 2016

A Polemic: Most People are Stupid Cowards!

I wish to share with you, dear reader, my thoughts on a very fair review of my book Nulliuis in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret, by former Assistant State Attorney, Professor George R Dekle.

Please Note: The link to Professor Dekle's review, and my reply to his review, is here   .

My reply On to George R. Dekle (Mar 9, 2016 1:07:24 AM PST)

Dr Mike Sutton says:
Nullius in Verba
George - I think that's a very fair and honest and well-balanced review. Thank you for buying and reading my book and for taking the trouble to review it. I see from your profile that you are an experienced attorney - but now a professor. My first degree was in law and I have for some time now wondered how a jury might weigh the evidence for the case I make in my book that Darwin more likely than not knew of Matthew's original prior published ideas on natural selection and his original explanatory analogies before he replicated them without citing Matthew.
In my book I argue that it seems more likely than not Darwin did read Matthew's (1831) book before 1858 on the evidence of who it is newly discovered (who Darwin and Wallace knew - who influenced them) did read it before he and Wallace replicated the original ideas in it without citing Matthew. I then prove Darwin lied in 1860 when he wrote the very opposite to what Matthew informed him about the prior readership of his book (that Loudon reviewed it, that another naturalist feared pillory punishment were he to teach the original ideas on natural slection it, and that Perth Public Library banned it) by claiming Matthew's original ideas went completely unread until Matthew brought them to Darwin's attention in 1860. As I write in the book, I think that when we add Darwin's weird lack of curiosity about Matthew to the New Data evidence that Darwin's and Wallace's associates and influencers - and their influencers influencers - in fact did read Matthew's book to the fact Darwin then lied about the prior-readership of Matthew's book by other naturalists that a jury would find Darwin guilty - beyond reasonable doubt - of plagiarism science fraud.
Of course, we can't know what a jury would decide, although a televised mock trial would be interesting - and highly entertaining and educational. But one thing is certain, and that is that by so lying (by all rational understanding of what a lie is - i.e. self servingly writing the very opposite to what you have been told) about the prior-readership of Matthew's book, Darwin successfully convinced the world that Matthew is relatively insignificant. That lie has stuck as a great myth. Consequently, the Scots demolished Matthew's house and grubbed up his ancient orchards in the 1980s. Today, they are now chopping down the giant monumental California redwood trees that he planted in 1854. As we can see - polemic or not - the facts prove that Darwin's falsehoods continue to reverberate through time to perpetuate injustice to Scottish cultural heritage and social, economic tourism, educational, historic, and bio-sustainability.
You might be interested to learn that since I published my book, I have originally discovered that John Lindley (who keeps cropping up in the story of Matthew, Darwin and Wallace in my book) is proven to have perpetrated for 13 years a great fraud that he and Lobb were first to introduce, propagate and name (as Wellingtonia) the giant Californian redwoods in Britain. And Lindley was a correspondent of both Darwin and Wallace - and like them he believed in the mutability of species. In 1866 - a year after Lindley's death - his own journal proved Matthew and his son John were in fact first by producing the evidence from a letter Lindley had in possession from before he claimed he and Lobb were first. My website has all the details (click the Matthew's Redwoods page tab).
Next week, I am giving a public lecture at the James Hutton Institute (and further talks elsewhere in Scotland) on the story. Perhaps it's a polemic - I'm not sure - I suspect it is. Perhaps the facts are presented in a rather overwrought manner - of that I am sure. Regardless, facts are facts. I just want to get them out there and to get people to listen to them - because they are new facts - and weigh them and understand their significance. I know I'm not the best person to convey these facts. Others could do a far better job than I. But it falls to me alone to carry the burden at the time of writing, since I alone discovered them. No others seem willing to put their head above the parapet and point and shout that the kings (Darwin and Wallace) have no clothes. As the fairy story and now this story teach us, that is - to put it polemically - because most people are stupid cowards.
Hopefully, we can save the monumental Matthew trees in the Carse of Gowrie and elsewhere in Perth and Kinross Scotland from further destruction. It's a shame we could not save Patrick Matthew's wonderful old Regency manor house, because it would have made a superb museum to explain to the world how a farmer and politician discovered natural selection. Some of these Matthew Trees are currently under threat from a proposed quarry extension - others have been felled on spurious grounds. It is rather poignant, I think, that it was the initial destruction of giant redwoods in the 19th century that kick-started the national parks movement in the USA.
By the way I just had news from some Scots who went to New Zealand to meet the Matthew descendants there that Errol Jones is alive and well at 101 and is very pleased that her ancestor is beginning to finally get the recognition he deserved in his lifetime.

Monday, 7 March 2016

Rational Veracity Activism


Early responses to the discovery of the New Data that dis-confirm "Darwin's and Wallace's independent discovery paradigm" reveal that emotions run high when one's professional and personal identity is wrapped up in the work of a newly proven serial liar and plagiarising science fraudster by glory theft.

  • Exposing George Beccaloni - Curator of the Alfred Wallace Collection of the Natural History Museum, London - for his weird ignorance of the facts he should have known and what they mean, his penning of a sly and dishonestly bogus book review (of my book he later admitted he had never even read!), and strange whining that he is being bullied when cornered with the truth of it all. Here.
  • Dr Mike Weale uses the kind of  "nothing happened" "magical thinking" literal fact denial reasoning explained by Cohen, S. (2001) States of Denial. (pages 104-105), that what amounts to deliberate lying  -  at least by any rational understanding of the meaning of the word - does not amount to lying in the special case of Charles Darwin - Here.
  • I am joined by U.S. Army (retired) Major Howard Minnick (third great grandson of Patrick Matthew) in a homage to Hunter S. Thompson's Gonzo style of journalism.  We deliberately become part of the story about Charles Darwin on the Daily Telegraph blog site. I then report on the story - Here.
  • A Wikipedian, involved in training Wikipedians, is confronted with the fact that Wikipedia editors are systematically deleting the fact Darwin lied about the prior-readership of Matthew's original ideas  - Here.
  • Exposing and challenging in public the ignorance, poor-conduct and uncomfortable cowardice of Professor Nathaniel Comfort:
Having published a public statement on Twitter that my peer reviewed journal paper is "an ignorant piece of crap" Comfort was offered the chance to explain himself and debate with me, on a moderated website, why my original and significant contribution to knowledge in the field - that as opposed to prior knowledge that none read it - that in fact many naturalists (four known to Darwin/Wallace) read Matthew's prior-published discovery of natural selection before Darwin and Wallace replicated without citing Matthew, the foul-penned, and plainly uncomfortable and cowardly when cornered, Comfort responded by blocking me on Twitter - Here