Naughty Biologist > No Royal Society Darwin Medal!

In an earlier blog post, I 100 per cent proved the fact that the world's leading Darwinists had done no more than blindly parrot Darwin's easily discoverable and significant lies about Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior-published discovery of natural selection.

The telling question here is:  Could anyone writing the truth about Darwin's lies could ever win a Darwin medal from the Royal Society? 

I think that Stanley Cohen's (2001, pp. 66-67) excellent book 'States of Denial' explains why the

Surrounded and influenced
 before 1858,
by naturalists who did read
and cite Matthew's
prior-published conception
of natural selection,
Darwin claimed
to have immaculately
 conceived it!
He then wrote four fallacies
about Matthew and his book
to support his claim.

answer to my question is likely to be no - and why I for one will never be awarded the Darwin Medal for writing the uncomfortable disconfirming evidence for Darwin's claim to have independently conceived  natural selection:

'Codes of silence  - whether in the Mafia, large corporations, army, church, police or professional groups - range from strict, formal and enforced to barely conscious collusive denials. Webs of complicity may draw innocent observers into protecting the worst of perpetrators, denying the gravity of their actions or keeping silent about matters that threaten the group's conception of itself.'

And:

'Organizations work by what Janov termed 'groupthink': a collective mind-set that protects illusions from uncomfortable truths and disconcerting information.'

Feel free to disseminate the following informatics jpeg on this topic anywhere you see fit:

Evolutionary biologists will never be awarded the Royal Society Darwin Medal for writing the

The Darwin Medal

following truths about the history of discovery of natural selection:

Darwin's four fallacies about Matthew and his book: Blindly parroted by credulous Darwin scholars for 155 years as excuses for Darwin and Wallace not citing it.

1. The lie that Matthew buried all his ideas on natural selection in the appendix of his book. (See The Appendix Myth).

2. The lie that no naturalists / no one at all read Matthew's original ideas on natural selection before 1860. (See the 100 per cent disconfirming proof).

3. The fallacy that Matthew was merely an obscure writer on forest trees. Besides the evidence presented in the previous blog post to the one you are currently reading, which reveals Matthew's writing was recommended to Captain Fitzroy of the HMS Beagle, see Matthew's extensive publications on the Patrick Matthew Project website). By way of just one further example (among many others to be found in my (2014) book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret)  see the blog post where it is revealed that Matthew's (1831) book was prominently advertised and then cited in the Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1842 (the very year Darwin claimed to have first penned his first private essay on natural selection).

4. The fallacy that a book entitled 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture' was too inappropriate and obscure to contain the first publication of the unifying theory of biology. (Read about the huge importance attributed by the Royal Society to Evelyn's classic book on the exact same theme)

Naughty Biologist > No Royal Society Darwin Medal! https://t.co/FJiFveVOu0 pic.twitter.com/E3mpQ1sFHo

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) January 20, 2016