How do we Stop Darwinists from Fact Denying?

.@LSEImpactBlog First - learn to stop 'fact denying' to the press when faced with paradigm changing new discoveries: https://t.co/nOpImotkf8

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) July 4, 2016

Evolution Road

Darwin & Wallace and Co Needed Matthew's original work to allow them to cross Evolution Road https://t.co/LCLOWcbqyF pic.twitter.com/rFrp4IrlOP

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) July 3, 2016

Press the arrow and follow the data

Don't be a Mynah Bird Brained Parroting Academic. Get the facts and act on them

Mynah Bird Brained Academics are a Plague in Universities:
Don't be a bird of their featherhttps://t.co/6K7Wm5UvfI pic.twitter.com/OISr55WQfV

— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) July 2, 2016

Myths about Darwin (No 2.) The 'Galapagos Conception Myth' and 'Notebooks Myth'

Continuing with the theme of myths about Darwin in the Oxford paperback "Darwin" by Jonathan

Howard

THE 'GALAPAGOS CONCEPTION' AND 'DARWIN'S NOTEBOOKS' MYTHS

On page 1 Howard writes "The theory of evolution started on the Beagle Voyage" and "Returning home, Darwin started a series of personal notebooks which reveals the earliest developments of the theory of the theory of evolution..."

This sort of misleading storytelling has led to the "Finches Supermyth" that Darwin understood finch beak evolutionary adaptation  - in fact he never did any such thing. Darwin returned home from the Beagle voyage in 1836 still believing that species were completely immutable

Darwin supposedly began his Zoonomia notebook in 1837 (although we have no external evidence for this - other than the dates Darwin wrote on his private essays and notebooks - and Darwin is a proven prolific liar). The examples in that notebook on natural slection relate to fruit trees - Patrick Matthew's area of expertise. By 1837 two naturalists had already cited Matthew's book in the literature: the famous and influential naturalist John Loudon - who was a major influence on Darwin and his friends and and closely connected to his inner circle and the naturalist Robert Chambers - who went on the write the hugely influential "Vestiges of Creation" (SEE SUTTON 2014 FOR THE NEWLY DISCOVERED  FACTS)

The Tri Independent Discovery Paradigm is in Crisis

Kuhn said this happens. He was right: https://t.co/4cZIJZij8D pic.twitter.com/95NQaWd7ST

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) July 2, 2016

100 per cent proof that what is published can be100% proven to be there in print

.@religulous I can 100% prove you wrong. Place your hand over my tweet and remove it 100 times. The word "wrong" is 100% proven to be there

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) July 1, 2016

Careerism Leading to Intellectual Corruption at the Heart of the Scientific Community

CAREERISM = the policy or practice of advancing one's career at the cost of one's integrity https://t.co/A2T1JS5ezH pic.twitter.com/YcNAFokLpi

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) June 29, 2016

Right of Reply to Misleading Book Review

The science Journal Philosophical Aspects of Origin kindly allowed me a right of reply to Grzegorz Malec's review of my book  You can read my reply here.


Excerpt from:

Darwin’s Greatest Secret Exposed:Response to Grzegorz Malec’s De Facto Fact Denying Review of My Book - By Mike Sutton

To necessarily repeat the point already made, Darwin’s greatest secret is that he and Alfred Wallace fallaciously claimed alternately that no naturalist and no one at all read Matthew’s prior-published discovery and explanatory examples of natural selection before they replicated both. The “New Data”, originally presented in my book, conclusively proves that is a fallacy. The proof of the fallacy 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 Darwin and Wallace and their influencers, and their influencers’ 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 proven to have lied in writing that excuse, because he wrote that as an absolute self-serving 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 heretical ideas, by Perth Public Library in Scotland. Credulous Darwin scholars have been parroting their namesakes’ lies about the supposed lack of pre-1858 readership of Matthew’s original ideas ever since. They have done so in order to necessarily construct and maintain the now newly busted myths that support the Darwinist paradigm of tri-independent discovery of Matthew’s prior-published conception of macro evolution by natural selection.

Conclusions and the Way Forward 

Alarmingly, there are scientists and historians of science working in our universities today who are prepared to deny that facts exist, or else — for whatever reason — to misrepresent work through cherry picking, de facto fact denial behaviour and other gross distortions of published evidence, that effectively misleads the public about their existence and what they mean for the history of scientific discovery.

Darwinists, named for their much deified hero, have traditionally worshipped Darwin for his honesty, integrity and originality. The “real facts”, newly discovered and originally presented in my book, originally prove they have been worshipping nothing more than a lying, replicating glory thief. In other words, they have credulously bet their careers on the wrong scientist. We should not expect an admission of this inevitability to be forthcoming anytime soon. Because esteemed research teaches us that paradigm changes in science take time and are at first met with fierce resistance.

As we were discussing @DrMarkGriffiths Just one example of fact denial behaviour exposed: https://t.co/3iHuQ1yjdq pic.twitter.com/SYjDacaISD

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) June 29, 2016

Why Darwinists Need to Face the New Facts Rather then Deny they Exist

Today, I wrote the the comment below on a blog about my work: http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/did-darwin-plagiarize-idea-natural-selection

A good point to try to get to the bottom of the matter.

I suggest it is important to stick to facts alone.

It is a 100 percent certain (because what he wrote is actually in print in the publication record ) fact that three times after Matthew had informed him that the very opposite was true that Darwin claimed Matthew's original ideas had not been read pre-1860. That proven deliberately misleading lie deflected attention away from the fact - discoverable at the time - because Matthew in 1860 informed Darwin about Loudon having read and reviewed his book in 1832. This is important because Loudon was a most famous and influential naturalist who then went on to edit two of Blyth's highly influential articles on organic evolution. And Darwin - from 1861 onward admitted Blyth had been a prior-greal informant for his work on natural selection. Hence, here we see that another factiod - the Darwinist myth (based on Darwin's lies) that Matthew's original (1831) ideas were unread pre-1858) is burst. This new information reveals one route of knowledge contamination from Matthew's pre-1858 conception to Darwin's replication. Hence, the facts prove that the premise underpinning the paradigm of Darwin's independent discovery of Matthew's prior-published conception of macroevolution by natural selection is now a punctured myth. Am I a crank for discovering that - as opposed the old factoid - published by the world's leading Darwinists that no naturalist had read Matthew's ideas that in fact Loudon was a naturalist who edited the articles of Darwin's great influencer? Am I a crank for busting the myth that no naturalist had read Matthew's ideas before 1858? Moreover Darwin knew Loudon. He heavily annotated his work and he spoke highly of it in correspondence.

And that is just the beginning - because besides Loudon I discovered that out of 25 people who cited Matthew's book pre-1858 that six other influential naturalists - who are known to have influenced both Darwin and Wallace also cited Matthew's book and the ideas in it pre 1858. - indeed before either Darwin or Wallace put pen to private notepad on the topic - cited Matthew's book and the original ideas in it pre-1858.

Many of the new mythbusting details are in my latest peer reviewed science article on the topic. http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz....

I think the cranks are those who cannot accept painfully new disconfirming facts for their cherished unevidenced beliefs that have led them to deify Darwin - who is newly proven to be a liar as well as a mere replicator, whose friends and influencers were capable of finding Matthew's ideas. So what do the real cranks wish to reward Darwin for now? Being a liar and poor scholar - who could not (he claimed) find the one book in the word that he most needed to read because he replicated the original and highly complex theory, and very same idiosyncratic explanatory examples, in it - well have been influenced by the originator of very same great idea he was 28 years too late with yet still called "my theory" by using the exact same four words to nae it that Matthew used 28 years earlier? Matthew (1831) originally and uniquely called it the "natural process of selection" Darwin (1859) four word shuffled that term into "process of natural selection".

Do Darwinists wish now to believe in Darwin's and Wallace's dual miraculous immaculate conceptions of Matthew's ideas - whilst Darwin and Wallace were surrounded and influenced by men whose brains are now proven to have been fertile (to some admittedly unknown degree) with Matthew's original ideas? Just like the Blessed Virgin Mary then? Who is the crank. I mean...really? it's time Darwinites got real and stopped crankily fact denying what I have uniquely discovered.