When a lie is not lie @sitp is when the self serving plagiarist liar is a deified proxy god; https://t.co/FTYITNJ6Nr pic.twitter.com/ws8MFBMRTt— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) August 20, 2015
A comment left by me on Mike Weale's Patrick Matthew Project
Meanwhile, I do think it important to recap on the facts of what Matthew told Darwin and then how Darwin followed what Matthew informed him of by writing the exact opposite (in his own favour) .
What follows is the pertinent timeline of what was written by both men. I am saying here that Darwin lied but Mike Weale is claiming Darwin did not lie. I think the facts of Darwin's lies should be clearly stated and the data clearly presented. Here it is:
1. In 1860 in his first letter to the Gardener's Chronicle, to claim his rightful priority for his prior published the hypothesis of natural slection that Darwin replicated without citing him. Matthew wrote that his book had been reviewed by the famous naturalist botanist John Loudon.
Loudon’s review (1832): of Matthew's (1831) book contained the following sentence:
‘One of the subjects discussed in this appendix is the puzzling one, of the origin 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.’
Matthew (1860) in his first letter to the Gardener's Chronicle wrote:
'In your Number of March 3d I observe a long quotation from the Times, stating that Mr. Darwin "professes to have discovered the existence and modus operandi of the natural law of selection," that is, "the power in nature which takes the place of man and performs a selection, sua sponte," in organic life. This discovery recently published as "the results of 20 years' investigation and reflection" by Mr. Darwin turns out to be what I published very fully and brought to apply practically to forestry in my work "Naval Timber and Arboriculture," published as far back as January 1, 1831, by Adam & Charles Black, Edinburgh, and Longman & Co., London, and reviewed in numerous periodicals, so as to have full publicity in the "Metropolitan Magazine," the "Quarterly Review," the "Gardeners' Magazine," by Loudon, who spoke of it as the book, and repeatedly in the "United Service Magazine" for 1831, &c. The following is an extract from this volume, which clearly proves a prior claim. ...'
Loudon was a famous naturalist, Yet in his 1860 reply to Matthew's 1860 letter Darwin wrote the exact opposite to what Matthew had just told him. See point 2, immediately below, for the hard evidence.
2. In his 1860 letter in the Gardener's Chronicle Darwin's first lie on this specific matter was written by his own hand:
" I think that no one will feel surprised that neither I, nor apparently any other naturalist, had heard of Mr Matthew's views, "
To necessarily repeat the point already made, Darwin wrote the exact self-serving opposite to what Matthew had just informed him.
3. Naturally concerned that Darwin was denying the truth about the fact that his book had been read by other naturalists, and its unique ideas understood, Matthew (1860) then very clearly, in his second letter in the Gardener's Chronicle - by way of reply to Darwin's blatant self-serving lie - wrote:
'I notice in your Number of April 21 Mr. Darwin’s letter honourably acknowledging my prior claim relative to the origin of species. I have not the least doubt that, in publishing his late work, he believed he was the first discoverer of this law of Nature. 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, not in the market-place and not devised for this offence, but generally practised a little more than half a century ago. 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, nor do I believe is the present one,..'
4. Despite being initially informed that the naturalist Loudon had read and reviewed his book Darwin lied in his letter of reply in the Gardener's Chronicle by writing that no naturalist had read Matthew's ideas. As can be seen in point 3, above, Matthew then corrected Darwin by informing him in detail of yet another naturalist who had read his original ideas on natural slection but was afraid t teach them for fear of pillory punishment. So what did Darwin do next? He wrote to a famous and influential naturalist with the self serving lie that no one at all had ever read Matthew's book! To the famous French naturalist Quatrefages de Bréau in his letter of April 25, 1861 Darwin wrote
: "I have lately read M. Naudin's paper; but it does not seem to me to anticipate me, as he does not shew how Selection could be applied under nature; but 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."?
5. Then in 1861 in the Third Edition of the Origin of Species - and in every edition thereafter, Darwin continued that exact same great self serving lie about Matthew's book, and who read the ideas in it. That lie corrupted - for 155 years - the history of the discovery of natural slection. Darwin (1861) wrote in the third edition of The Origin of Species -despite being informed of the exact opposite by Matthew only the year before:
. 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 Gardener's Chronicle,' on April 7th, 1860.'
Small wonder then that Darwin's Darwinist's - being named for their lying hero - failed to check the truth of the matter. By way of example, Sir Gavin de Beer - Royal Society Darwin Medal winner - wrote Darwin's great lie as the "gospel according to Darwin" truth: And - to necessarily repeat the point thrice made - until I personally put the record straight not a single person corrected his award winning credulous Darwin deification claptrap:
"...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.'
Darwin was a self-serving deliberate liar. The record is independently verifiable. Darwin wrote the very opposite to which he had twice been informed was the truth by the very trustworthy man whose ideas he replicated without citing their originator's prior publication of them. And Darwin wrote those falsehoods - because ...just as de Beer's ludicrously acclaimed text goes to prove- they were needed to wrestle priority away form the true biological father of natural selection.
Mike Weale does not think Darwin lied. I say it is as clear as the long nose on the end of Pinocchio's lying face that Darwin did - and the independently verifiable facts above absolutely prove it.