Facts Against Beloved Myths in Science and History

 

The Patrick Matthew Effect in Science

 The expert peer reviewed scholarly and empirical fact based Springier Science book chapter  "The Patrick Matthew Effect in Science" can now be read in full on the Patrick Matthew Violin website HERE

The Darwin deification anti-fact and logic blinkered delusional position on Patrick Matthew - as published on the Wikipedia Patrick Matthew page and in malicious fake book reviews - is akin to what creationism is to biology. 

Wikipedia, the world's worse encyclopedia, is named as a deliberate and fraudulent misinformation source in the chapter, 

The Patrick Matthew Violin: An incredible story of great irony

 As an academic, it's not really my job or duty  to ensure that bone headed empirical data evidenced fact deniers stop fact denying what has been newly unearthed about Darwin's lies and plagiary. My duty was to find out a truthful fact led explanation for the otherwise miraculous dual virgin brained replications of Matthew's prior published theory and story that nobody read Matthew's 1831 theory before 1858 and 1859 when Darwin and Wallace replicated it. I did that. The facts prove Darwin a serial lying plagiarist. Wallace also. The facts, they pretend don't exist by failing to acknowledge them in ludicrously fake book reviews and corrupt articles,  prove that Darwin adoration superfans are currently writing fake reviews. Cole is just one culprit of such disgraceful unscientific behaviour. Does he magically think he is going to get away with that complete dishonest nonsense? I would not want such behaviour to be my legacy for all eternity. But now it is his (here)

 Maybe getting the facts into art where art now informs science that it needs to be less artistic and more scientific is the way forward?

We have some songs and poems to accompany the Patrick Matthew Violin (here). I'm hoping others in the arts and in science and history will become interested in this most ironic way forward. On the 4th of July this year the violin and its story is part of a "Violins with Stories" event held in Sherwood, Nottinghamshire.  

Mike Sutton March 2025

What are academics supposed to do about lies, bullshit and about truth?

 Our universities have been taken over by bullshit. HERE

Academics are supposed to have a duty to pursue the beauty of truth and expose the ugliness of lies.

It matters not how beautiful the the theory is that Darwin and Wallace had independent conceptions of Patrick Matthew's prior published theory, It matters not how convenient the newly created tale that Darwin and Matthew, Wallace and "Royal Society Darwin Medal" winners Ernst Mayer and Sir Gavin de Beer were wrong to write that Matthew's theory is essentially the same as that replicated by Darwin and Wallace. If the theory and the tale and don't fit the data then they are wrong. And they most certainly don't fit the empirical independently verifiable new found data (Sutton 2022). 

Today our universities prefer mere blind belief in the romance and the lies over the truth. Why? Because they have adopted the practices of business, and one of the first essential rules of a successful business is to lie (here) and tell stories to sell products to make profits and to make money making transactional deals. 

What has Elon Musk got to do with the story of Patrick Matthew and Charles Darwin?

 At the time of writing, Elon Must now owns the social media platform Twitter and has re-named it X. Musk is using the platform to facilitate and enable the convicted felon, adjudicated rapist and prolific serial liar and misinformation spreader Donald Trump. Musk is a member of the Royal Society of London (here). Musk is a proven self-interested serial liar and proven prolific spreader of misinformation and absolute falsehoods (here). Why would the Royal Society not kick him out? That is the telling question. 

Why is it wrong to simply "believe in" the truth about anything. 

Including ludicrous credulous religious belief that questioning given articles of faith is "sinful" and so must be avoided to reach some heavenly person-promised place after death, it is not sensible to simply believe in anything at all as a fact. This is because, religion aside, we tend to think that our beliefs about what is true are based on facts. However, the danger is that our mere beliefs about what is true may not be based on facts at all. We like to think that facts lead to beliefs, but research into human bias repeatedly shows us that it is beliefs that influence how we approach and interpret facts. And so what happens is that our beliefs about what is true can be based entirely on lies, ignorance and misinformation. In the story of Charles Darwin, Alfred Wallace and Patrick Matthew, many so called "scientists" are not seeing that the independently verifiable empirical data led facts show us what is true in this story, because they are invested in something else. And that something else is their beliefs created by the misinformation spread by The Royal Society of London and the Linnean Society about Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace being honest genius independent discovers of the theory of evolution by natural selection. Showing Darwinists the newly discovered facts that their namesake was in fact a lying plagiarist of the great unifying theory of biology does not help because they want to interpret that evidence entirely through the prism of what they already merely believe. And so what many of them are engaging in is not a cynical form of lying, but mere self-deception. Others are perhaps knowingly lying to protect their own Darwin invested reputations and perhaps the reputations of our institutions of science.

The newly discovered, and some long ago known, independently verifiable empirical data about who read and cited Patrick Matthew's (1831) published theory of the natural process of selection, and the proven knowing lies Darwin told to cover that up is being suppressed by lies and misinformation spread by the so-called "Darwin Industry".

Connections between Donald Trump and Charles Darwin: An explanation by way of analogies

 
Stupid is Stupid Does: Charles Darwin was the World's Greatest Con Man

Patrick Matthew (1831) used an analogy of differences between artificial selection and natural selection as a key explanatory device for the first published origination of the complete theory of macro-evolution by the natural process of selection. That was so important, the plagiarist Charles Darwin replicated it at the very start of  his theory stealing book The Origin of Species (1859).

Furthermore, as it has long been said that "An artist borrows but a great artist steals" if that reasoning is to be followed then Darwin was a great con artist because he is 100% proven to have knowingly lied when he wrote that no single person had read Matthew's 1831 book before he and Wallace replicated the bombshell theory in it. and claimed to have done so independently of Matthew's influence. 

Analogously, Donald Trump's two times election as US President  is proof enough of the saying that  "A conman does not have to be smart if his victims are stupid." In light of the empirical fact dodging (and so effectively) "fake" book reviews of Science Fraud, and blog, Wikipedia and academic biology journal shenanigans going on by fact denial Darwin fanatics (see a real science book chapter exposing this behaviour here archived here) those still believing in and promoting the Victorian Darwin Myth are stupid too. And so we see, yet again, that it's true: "stupid is stupid does".

Darwinism Holidaying from Proper history is Over: Proper history about independently verifiable facts, not about lies and using them to manipulate others

 Patrick Matthew originated and then had published the first full explanation of macro evolution by the process of natural selection in his book "On Naval Timber and Arboriculture" (1831) and followed it up with his second book "Emigration Fields" (1839) in order to make the case for conquest and Anglo Saxon colonization of other people's lands by what he thought represented the best genetic and moral variety of human beings. Later Matthew would write to Darwin a confession of his selfishness and repentance for so doing. However, Darwin the  plagiarist, serial liar and apex propagandist, who stole Matthew's theory, did no such thing. His sole aim was personal fame and he manipulated others to assist him in that endeavor by lying about Matthew's (1831) book and who he knew read it before he and Wallace copied the bombshell ideas in it and then claimed to have originated them independently of Matthew's prior publications.

I don't full agree with Marx's quote above, that I edited with the text "[Proper]".

 In my more considered opinion: 

"Proper history is not the same as any individual manipulating, exploiting the vulnerable and otherwise using people to achieve their own ends for propaganda and myth making. Proper history results from accurately data gathering, recording and objectively chronicling the actions of people and their various results, impacts and influence on the social and physical world."

In light of the new data that busts the Darwin and Wallace myth, it is time for proper historians of science (not Darwin super fans) to declare that the Darwin worshiping fanatical holiday from empirical data facts is over.

If the Fat Copycats Darwin and Wallace Were Alive Today

 If Darwin and Wallace were both live today they would each have studied the original designs for quantum computing then claimed to have independently originated the exact same thing.

Bollox needs to be deleted: Or else let us all instead all play the game "bury the Scot"

 From a book review on Amazon:  

Peter Bowler Sends Himself and other Darwinists on a Final Fools Errand to Play their Old Game of Bury the Scot

In this book, (Bowler 2013) Darwin Deleted: Imagining a World without Darwin, Professor Bowler - Professor emeritus of the history of science at Queens University Belfast - creates a counterfactual history of how things might have turned out had Darwin died aboard the Beagle and never written about natural selection.

His book is well written and entertaining once you get beyond the necessarily very thorough caveats about the usefulness of thinking counter-factually in the introduction. However, it contains significant and unforgivable errors. That I am no Darwinist and no science historian and yet the fact that I know them to be 100% erroneous does not bode well for Bowler or Chicago University Press and it's so-called "expert" peer review system!

A book such as Bowler's takes a lot of work - blood sweat tears and even bone marrow - but his credulous parroting of the Darwinian myth that Matthew's published discovery of natural selection did not reach the brains of either Darwin or Wallace is his utter downfall. An error of fact that, unfortunately, makes his entire book a fool's errand. All is not lost of course. He could bring out a second edition with Patrick Matthew as the protagonist.

In this review, I prove my point. On which note, what follows is a brief presentation of Bowler's errors and the published evidence in the literature that proves him to be 100 per cent wrong.

Error of fact 1:

On page 54 Bowler (2013) writes of Patrick Matthew:

`Patrick Matthew may well have stated the idea of natural selection as early as 1831, but he did nothing to explore its implications or to persuade his readers that it had the potential to revolutionize biology. His contribution is worth noting, but to suggest that is provides the basis for dismissing Darwin as the true founder of the theory is to misunderstand the whole process of how scientific revolution happens.'

In point of disconfirming fact for Bowler's argument:

Other great discoverers, such as Mendel, Fleming, and Higgs, did not take their ideas forward, but others did. The main issue, therefore, in the story of Matthew, Darwin and Wallace is simply to determine whether or not Matthew influenced Darwin or Wallace. Focusing upon that question, we do know that Matthew fully articulated his discovery of natural selection in a publication 27 years before Darwin and Wallace (1858) replicated it. And we know that both Darwin (1859) and Wallace claimed to have also discovered natural selection independently of one another (Darwin and Wallace 1858). Darwin (1860 and 1861) specifically claimed no-prior knowledge of Matthew's discovery and Wallace (1871; 1905) less specifically, simply claimed to have discovered it independently.

We now know (see Sutton 2014) that Loudon (1832), Selby (1842) and Chambers (1832) each cited Matthew's book before being at the epicentre of influence and facilitation of Darwin's and Wallace' published work on evolution. That fact alone proves that Matthew in fact did influence others of the importance of his discovery. And those others - via 'knowledge contamination' - must most surely have influenced both Darwin and Wallace.

So Nullius in Verba Charles Darwin! Because other naturalists who influenced you actually cited Matthew's book pre-1858!

(1) Loudon edited and published Blyth's (1835 and 1836) hugely influential papers on evolution - papers which Bowler mentions as having stated several key concepts of natural selection. And Darwin (1861) freely admitted the great contribution Blyth made to his own thinking on the topic.

(2) Chambers (1832) cited Matthew's book and then went on (Chambers 1844) to publish the Vestiges of Creation - a book which Both Wallace and Darwin admitted was a great influence on thinking about natural selection and organic evolution in general.

(3) Selby (1842) cited Matthews book many times and commented upon his key natural selection notion of power of occupancy. And Selby edited and published Wallace's (1855) famous Sarawak paper - which contained many examples of key natural selection ideas. Darwin also read that paper pre-1858.

That three of only seven naturalists, newly discovered to have cited Matthew's book in the literature, should have played such essential roles in influencing, editing and publishing the work of Darwin and Wallace proves beyond all reasonable doubt that Matthew did persuade his readers that natural selection had the potential to revolutionize biology. Bowler is proven wrong, because under the very criteria that Darwinists such as Bowler specifically created to exclude Matthew from his rightful place as an immortal great thinker of science, the new discovery of his certain indirect influence upon Darwin and Wallace, means that as both first discoverer and proven influencer Matthew now has full and complete priority over Darwin and Wallace for the discovery of natural selection. Perhaps Darwinists would now like to exercise their right to cognitive dissonance and invent some new `bury the Scot' criteria to protect their namesake from being knocked off the pedestal he fought to so hard for them to put him on?

Error of fact 2

On page 31 Bowler writes that Wallace missed the key element of using artificial selection to explain natural selection.

Bowler (2013, p. 31):

`Alfred Russel Wallace also conceived a basic idea of natural selection, although we shall see that he understood its implications rather differently. Wallace also missed key elements of the case Darwin presented, most obviously the analogy between artificial and natural selection.'

However, Bowler - in writing a book for a popular audience - and, therefore, for all scientists as well as biologists, fails to distinguish between "the biologists' analogy" - which includes only things that are alike - and the general use of the term analogy - which includes comparing things to explain how they are alike, or else comparing them in order to explain why they are unalike.

Adopting as he does, without explanation only the biologists' restricted special use of the term 'analogy', Bowler conveniently fails to mention that Darwin replicated an analogy invented by Matthew in 1831 to explain his discovery of natural selection. Loren Eiseley (1979, pp.71-73) believed Darwin plagiarised Matthew's (1831) prior use of the analogy of artificial selection to explain natural selection and even replicated a specific example of trees raised in nurseries in his unpublished essay of 1844.

By neglecting to distinguish between the "biologists analogy" and the general understanding of the term, Bowler has penned another absolute fallacy by telling us that Wallace did not deploy the artificial selection analogy. Because in his own Linnean Society paper, Wallace (see Darwin and Wallace 1858), whilst specimen hunting in the jungles of the Far East, in actual fact, does incredibly replicate Matthew's prior- discovery that artificial selection is the key to explaining natural selection. Wallace (1858) wrote:

`...those that prolong their existence can only be the most perfect in health and vigour - those who are best able to obtain food regularly, and avoid their numerous enemies. It is, as we commenced by remarking, "a struggle for existence," in which the weakest and least perfectly organized must always succumb.' [And]: `We see, then, that no inferences as to varieties in a state of nature can be deduced from the observation of those occurring among domestic animals. The two are so much opposed to each other in every circumstance of their existence, that what applies to the one is almost sure not to apply to the other. Domestic animals are abnormal, irregular, artificial; they are subject to varieties which never occur and never can occur in a state of nature: their very existence depends altogether on human care; so far are many of them removed from that just proportion of faculties, that true balance of organization, by means of which alone an animal left to its own resources can preserve its existence and continue its race.'

By failing to discover who Matthew influenced, who in turn must have influenced Darwin and Wallace, Bowler's (2013) entire book is a fool's errand because it is based on the false premise that Darwin and Wallace were independent discoverers of natural selection. To compound that dysology Bowler, creates the fallacy that Wallace did not replicate Matthew's prior use of artificial selection as an analogy to explain natural selection. Bowler's deploys that specific fallacy to make the case that Darwin was an original thinker. Clearly, the hard facts prove that nothing could be further from the truth. Because both Darwin and Wallace both audaciously replicated Matthew's use of artificial selection.

Here is just one example, of many, that Matthew (1831) wrote in the main body of his book on this issue:

`Man's interference, by preventing this natural process of selection among plants, independent of the wider range of circumstances to which he introduces them, has increased the differences in varieties particularly in the more domesticated kinds...'

In his unpublished essay of 1844, Darwin wrote:

`In the case of forest trees raised in nurseries, which vary more than the same trees do in their aboriginal forests, the cause would seem to lie in their not having to struggle against other trees and weeds, which in their natural state doubtless would limit the conditions of their existence...'

We should not actually be in the least bit surprised to find Wallace replicating Matthew's artificial selection analogy to explain his discovery, because Selby, the editor and publisher of Wallace's (1855) Sarawak paper, cited Matthew's book many times in his own book on forest trees (Selby 1842), which is an irrefutable case of Matthewian knowledge contamination of Wallace's pre-Origin work. I made that particular discovery in 2013. It was completely undetected by anyone until I published it in (Sutton 2014). So much then for Bowler's uncritical parroting of the Darwinist myth that Matthew never influenced anyone with his discovery.

Error of fact 3: Bowler Deploys Darwin's sly Appendix Myth

Darwin knew full well that Matthew's unique ideas were in both the main body of his book and in its Appendix. Indeed he wrote to his friend Joseph Hooker admitting as much (Darwin 1860b). Yet still Darwin went on to lie (Darwin 1861) that Matthew's ideas were brief and buried in his book's appendix as an excuse for not having read them and for his fallacious claim that those ideas went unnoticed pre-Origin of Species. Bowler merely parrots Darwin's great lie, flying in the face of the fact that Matthew's ideas run throughout the book where they take up many pages - including Matthew's artificial selection analogy, and the unique name for his discovery. Indeed, as outlined above; the very artificial selection analogy that Bowler (2013 - pp. 56-58) admits Matthew used is in the main body of his book - not its appendix.

See Sutton 2014 for hard proof of how page after page of Matthew's (1831) text on natural selection is in the main body of his book.

Another Darwinian Myth in the Making

In the weird unscholarly Darwinist tradition of writing that you are personally naming or calling something, when it has already been thus named by others, Bowler gives the false impression that he is uniquely coining his own term and its concept (see my blog on Richard Dawkins doing the exact same thing). In this case, Bowler (2013, p 139) writes:

'The formalist perspective encouraged a more structured progressionism that I call "developmentalism". 

But Bowler never coined the term developmentalism, because its been used by natural scientists since 1869. For example, see the Anthropological Review (1869, p.ixxxix):

`He dissented from developmentalism, we believe decidedly it has been said by Professor Welcker that although he was sceptical upon the descendance hypothesis he reserved himself expectant but the readers of the well argued exposition of his views entitled. Some Remarks on the Succession and Development of Animal Organisation on the surface of our globe, in the different periods of its existence, would rather conclude that he had decided against developmentalism after careful and thorough investigation.'

By giving such a powerfully false impression that he has coined the term "developmentalism", Bowler engages in exactly the same type of Darwinist dysology that led so many Darwinists to go into print with their erroneous beliefs that Darwin coined the term and concept `natural selection' and that Richard Dawkins coined the terms and concepts of the `selfish gene' and, most ironically, `replicator'. Of course, Darwin and Dawkins did no such thing. But, just like Bowler in 'Darwin Deleted', they sure as hell gave the self-serving impression that they are being original by naming terms and ideas that are, in fact, pre-named and pre-owned.

Discussion and conclusions

Bowler's weird error of fact, in claiming that Wallace, pre-1858, did not use the artificial selection analogy first used by Matthew to explain natural selection, led him ultimately to draw the 100 per cent wrong conclusion to crucially inform his ultimate prediction about what would have happened had Darwin drowned pre-Origin (Bowler 2013, p170):

`Wallace would not have used the analogy between natural and artificial selection...'

Surely this amazingly massive error, and the failure of any Darwinist to spot it before I, is further evidence that leading Darwinists are suffering from dreadful bias when it comes to assessing the originality of their namesake?

That Bowler's book passed peer review, and has been highly praised by fellow biologists and science historians, is indicative of a widespread and very deep-seated scientific monopoly on 'knowledge' that is facilitated by conflict of interest when it comes to judging who has priority for the discovery of natural selection. Failing to apply the scientific principle of nullius in verba (on the word alone of no one), it seems that Darwinists have been unable to see that their namesake is only their namesake due to their own failure to investigate Darwin's (1861) impudent claim that Matthew's ideas went unnoticed until he called Darwin's attention to them in 1860.

If Darwinists refuse to accept now that they are named after the wrong scientist, then we should not be surprised. It is important to understand that those calling themselves a Darwinist will have a colossal conflict of interest when it comes to judging whether someone not called Darwin should have priority over their hero for the very idea that made him famously their namesake. In light of the new discovery, that Matthew did influence Darwin and Wallace pre-1858, we should expect Darwinists to experience cognitive dissonance and set about making a number of implausible arguments along the lines that Matthewian knowledge contamination from Loudon, Chambers and Selby cannot be 100 per cent proven to have occurred. Failing that, we should expect them to create a new made-for Matthew excuse to deny his priority. Perhaps Darwinists will now newly create a third criteria for priority? Perhaps they will argue next that it is not the originator who influenced others to take a discovery forward that has priority for a discovery but whoever more famously convinced the wider world of the veracity of that discovery? After all that is exactly what appears to have happened by default in the case of Richard Dawkins and the 'selfish gene' and - with exquisite backside biting irony - the 'selfish replicator' (see Sutton 2013).

The Darwinist Bowler is very far from alone in creating his own and spreading old fallacies, lies and myths to keep Patrick Matthew buried in relative obscurity. One cannot help wondering, how Professor Bowler - an expert historian of science - could have unwittingly made so many glaring factual errors? More so, his book is published by the prestigious University of Chicago Press, which means that it will have undergone expert peer review. How could the reviewers possibly fail to spot those obvious errors of fact? Surely it cannot be because they serve to perpetuate the myth that Darwin and Wallace each discovered natural selection independently of Matthew, can it?

Bowler's 2013 dysology sits among many other examples, by other authors, publishing with prestigious scientific publishers, which confirms the Dysology Hypothesis that poor scholarship facilitates and encourages others to get away with publishing further poor scholarship. Moreover, it is yet another example from a long list of scientific publications, by major science publishers, which are written by Darwinists who have, since 1860, managed to contain the threat of Patrick Matthew by publishing numerous downright fallacies, lies and myths.

References

The Anthropological Review (1869) Volume 7.

Bowler, P. J. (2013) Darwin Deleted: Imagining a World without Darwin. Chicago. University of Chicago Press.

Blyth, E. 1835. An attempt to classify the "varieties" of animals. The Magazine of Natural History. (8) (1), Parts 1-2.

Blyth, E. 1836. Observations on the various seasonal and other external Changes which regularly take place in Birds more particularly in those which occur in Britain; with Remarks on their great Importance in indicating the true Affinities of Species; and upon the Natural System of Arrangement. The Magazine of Natural History: Volume 9. p. 393 - 409.

Chambers, R. 1832. Chambers's Edinburgh Journal. William Orr. Saturday March 24th p. 63.

Chambers, R. 1844. Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. New York. Wiley and Putnum. (published anonymously).

Darwin, C. R. and Wallace, A. R. (1858) On the tendency of species to form varieties; and on the perpetuation of varieties and species by natural means of selection. Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnaean Society of London.

Darwin, C. R. (1860a) Natural selection. Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette no. 16 (21 April): 362-363.(This is Darwin's letter in response to Matthew's in the Gardeners Chronicle where Darwin clearly indicates he had no prior knowledge of Matthew's book).

Darwin, C. (1860b) Letter to Hooker. 13th April. Darwin Correspondence Project. Darwin Correspondence Database.

Darwin, C. R. (1861) On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. (Third Edition) London. John Murray.

Eiseley, L. (1979) Darwin and the Mysterious Mr X: New Light on the Evolutionists. New York. E. P. Dutton.

Loudon, J.C. 1832. Matthew Patrick On Naval Timber and Arboriculture with Critical Notes on Authors who have recently treated the Subject of Planting. Gardener's Magazine. Vol. VIII. p.703.

Matthew, P (1831) On Naval Timber and Arboriculture; With a critical note on authors who have recently treated the subject of planting. Edinburgh. Adam Black. [...]

Selby, P. J. (1842) A history of British forest-trees: indigenous and introduced. London. Van Voorst.

Sutton, M. (2013)The Selfish Gene Myth is Bust: Richard Dawkins is an Invented Originator. BestThinking.com

Sutton, M. (2014) Internet Dating with Darwin: New Discovery that Darwin and Wallace were Influenced by Matthew's Prior-Discovery. BestThinking.com

Wallace, A. R. 1855. On the law which has regulated the introduction of new species. The Annals and Magazine of Natural History. Series 2. 16. 184-196

Wallace, A. R. (1871) Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection. A Series of Essays. New York. Macmillan and Co.

Wallace, A. R. (1905) My Life: A Record of Events and Opinions, Volume 1. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. Note: Taken here from digitally printed version (2011), Cambridge University Press.

Dr Mike Sutton is author of Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret and more recently Science Fraud: Darwin's Plgiarism of Patrick Matthew's Theory

If it never happened it's not history

 The Fact-Led Story of Patrick Matthew, Darwin and Wallace is of Interest to People who Think Knowing and Telling the Truth Matters

In the fields of science and history we should trust those who seek the truth and be sceptical of those who say they have found it. However, being sceptical does not mean blindly dismissing the empirical fact findings and consequent conclusions of others based on those facts.

There is a story behind everything. You just have to dig deep enough to find the facts, follow the facts, weigh those facts without fear or favour and then share them for the benefit of veracious human knowledge. The problem we currently have in the history of science is that Charles Darwin venerating fanatics do not want the empirical fact led truth. Instead they want only their own comfy old, yet new found empirically evidenced fact debunked, "truth" and the multitude of publications in the so called "Darwin Industry" helps them find it and re-write it simply in order to create more Darwin fans to sell more publications for the benefit only of the so-called Darwin Industry. The myth that has been bust with new found hard data is the "Original Genius Honest Independent Discoverer of a Prior Published Theory" Victorian science myth of Charles Darwin.

At the time of writing, an ideologically political campaign is being waged to suppress the new empirical data on Darwin's plagiarism and his associated lies to hide it. The Dr Mike Sutton, Patrick Matthew and Charles Darwin pages of Wikipedia are prime examples of what is being done by way of brute censorship and pseudo-scholarly publishing of complete falsehoods to hide the independently verifiable facts from the wider public. Such behaviour is noted in the expert peer reviewed 2024 Springer Science book chapter "The Patrick Matthew Effect in Science." The Wikipedia page on Patrick Matthew fails to mention that publication, fails to record the 30 people who we newly know cited Matthew's 1831 book pre-1858 and fails to cite Dr Mike Sutton's (2022) book "Science Fraud: Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Theory", which shows exactly who cited Matthew's (1831) book, and which of them were known to Darwin as his friends and associates. That Wikipedia pages also fail to cite the multitude of examples of national newspaper coverage of Sutton's (2022) book and the bombshell findings in it (See the News page on PatrickMatthew.com to see those reports).

The fact-led story of Patrick Matthew, Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace is not about ideologically or politically dishonouring Darwin and Wallace, as Darwin fans would have you believe, it is about seeking the empirically evidenced truth about those we venerate in order that our history is correct rather than being based on debunked embarrassing myths. It did not happen that "no single person and none known to Darwin or Wallace" read Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior published complete theory of evolution by natural selection, as we have been led to believe following lies written by Darwin, who had been directly prior informed in published print by Matthew that Matthew's book was read and the bombshell theory in it reviewed in published print by at least one highly influential horticultural naturalist and Magaizine of Natural History science journal Chief Editor. That was John Loudon, who very well known to Darwin, Wallace, their influencers, and influencer's influencers long before 1858. 

If something did not happen then it is not history. The fact it has been newly discovered Matthew's book was read then cited in the literature by more than 30 people is history, because those citations exists as recorded as such in the historic publication print record, analogously like fossils embedded in the geological strata. The new found empirical data means it did not happen that Matthew's theory went unread by anyone known to Darwin or Wallace pre-1858. Currently, this new fact is being brute censored on Wikipedia, in the Darwin Industry literature and in the unhinged fact denial arguments of Darwin fanatics. 

They say societies that denigrate their heroes face insanity. Alternatively, is it not true that insanity involves believing in something irrational, arguing in its favour despite the empirical evidence it is not real and acting on that blind sight belief?

Why Darwin and Wallace stole Matthew's theory and lied to cover it up is a question that rational scholars will no doubt choose to debate in the future. But currently there is only some circumstantial evidence to allow the formulation of sensible speculation on that question. The book, "Science Fraud: Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Theory" deals only in independently verifiable empirical data.