 |
| One day, Scotland will have Patrick Matthew on the back of it's £10 note. |
Not for nothing was the great Maya Angelou at the front of the audience listening to Dick Gaughan.
So as not to face their significance, people may not fully engaged with dreadful facts. The range of denial devices used by those in a ‘state of denial’ include what Cohen (2001) terms 'canny unresponsiveness', ‘psychotic negation of manifest facts’, ‘lying to convince your listeners and reinforce your own denial of the real facts’, ‘negation by wishful-thinking’ ‘evasive reassurance that the facts are not that serious’, ‘victim blaming for their predicament’, ‘withdrawal of attention – deflecting the gaze’ and ‘compartmentalization’. These various manifestations of denial relieve the recipients of dreadful facts from immediate anxiety but, paradoxically, denial’s comforts create long-term dangers, against which we must remain alert.
The world's leading evolutionary biologists admit that Matthew was first to publish the full hypothesis of macro evolution by natural selection. But scant attention has been paid to how Matthew's right to be considered an immortal great thinker and influencer in science was stolen from him by the lies, fallacies and poor scholarship of Darwin and his Darwinists. Here is a list of just some of the tactics they employed:
1. Darwin's and Wallace's friend, John Lindley's (1853) Matthew glory stealing giant redwood seeds bogus priority claiming fallacy.
2. Wallace's replicating plagiarism of Matthew's original conception and unique explanatory examples in his 1855 and 1858 papers.
3. Darwin's (1858 and 1859) plagiarism and his Gardener's Chronicle (1860) and Origin of Species (1861) glory theft lies.
4. Darwin's friend, Professor David Anstead - or at the very least his anonymous editor weirdly added footnotes on his article - mockingly rubbishing Matthew in the Dublin University Magazine (January to June in 1860) effectively writing that he was an over opinionated crank who had written nothing original. The footnote can be read here. The Saturday Analyst and Leader (1860) then did the same thing.
5. In a gushing review of Darwin's Origin of Species. Charles Dickens's Magazine 'All the Year Round' (1860) quoted a paragraph of Matthew's (1831) original prose yet never cited Matthew as its source. The uncited quote is to be found here.
6. The Dundee platform blocking of Matthew at the 1867 meeting of the British Association for Advancement of Science.
7. Royal Society Darwin Medal winners Ernst Mayr's and Sir Gavin de Beer's published glory stealing fallacies that the original ideas in Matthew's book went completely unread/unread by any biologists - before Matthew brought them to Darwin's attention in 1860.
8. Richard Dawkins's pseudo-scholarly history and context free typical "state of denial" victim blaming of Matthew for what Darwin and his adoring Darwinists did to him.
DARWINIST DYSOLOGY
In addition to confirming the importance of understanding repeat victimization, their 100 per cent proven Darwinist fallacy spreading and dreadful pseudo-scholarly treatment of the facts confirms that the Dysology Hypothesis explains the Darwin Worship Industry's biased history of the discovery of natural selection:
'Letting scholars get away with publishing fallacies and myths signals to others the existence of topics where guardians of good scholarship might be less capable than elsewhere. Such dysology then serves as an allurement to poor scholars to disseminate existing myths and fallacies and to create and publish their own in these topic areas, which leads to a downward spiral of diminishing veracity on particular topics.'
The world's leading evolutionary biologists admit that Matthew was first to publish the full hypothesis of macro evolution by natural selection. But scant attention has been paid to how Matthew's right to be considered an immortal great thinker and influencer in science was stolen from him by the lies, fallacies and poor scholarship of Darwin and his Darwinists. Here is a list of just some of the tactics they employed:
1. Darwin's and Wallace's friend, John Lindley's (1853) Matthew glory stealing giant redwood seeds bogus priority claiming fallacy.
2. Wallace's replicating plagiarism of Matthew's original conception and unique explanatory examples in his 1855 and 1858 papers.
3. Darwin's (1858 and 1859) plagiarism and his Gardener's Chronicle (1860) and Origin of Species (1861) glory theft lies.
4. Darwin's friend, Professor David Anstead - or at the very least his anonymous editor weirdly added footnotes on his article - mockingly rubbishing Matthew in the Dublin University Magazine (January to June in 1860) effectively writing that he was an over opinionated crank who had written nothing original. The footnote can be read here. The Saturday Analyst and Leader (1860) then did the same thing.
5. In a gushing review of Darwin's Origin of Species. Charles Dickens's Magazine 'All the Year Round' (1860) quoted a paragraph of Matthew's (1831) original prose yet never cited Matthew as its source. The uncited quote is to be found here.
6. The Dundee platform blocking of Matthew at the 1867 meeting of the British Association for Advancement of Science.
7. Royal Society Darwin Medal winners Ernst Mayr's and Sir Gavin de Beer's published glory stealing fallacies that the original ideas in Matthew's book went completely unread/unread by any biologists - before Matthew brought them to Darwin's attention in 1860.
8. Richard Dawkins's pseudo-scholarly history and context free typical "state of denial" victim blaming of Matthew for what Darwin and his adoring Darwinists did to him.
DARWINIST DYSOLOGY
In addition to confirming the importance of understanding repeat victimization, their 100 per cent proven Darwinist fallacy spreading and dreadful pseudo-scholarly treatment of the facts confirms that the Dysology Hypothesis explains the Darwin Worship Industry's biased history of the discovery of natural selection:
'Letting scholars get away with publishing fallacies and myths signals to others the existence of topics where guardians of good scholarship might be less capable than elsewhere. Such dysology then serves as an allurement to poor scholars to disseminate existing myths and fallacies and to create and publish their own in these topic areas, which leads to a downward spiral of diminishing veracity on particular topics.'
.@Fact Tell Richard @RichardDawkins and Darwin's other silly lovers @rdfrs @DawkinsDog : https://t.co/FLZbi7tgXG pic.twitter.com/t8cN0aaeDU— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) February 9, 2016
A Criminological Comparison
The following comparison may appear odd, but I would argue no more odd than the similar ways experts in completely different areas can be so wrong about the subject of their claimed expertise in the most dissimilar of cases.
The Metropolitan Police Service officers who bungled the Colin Stagg Case, and top academic Darwinists who have bungled the history of discovery of natural selection have several key characteristics in common:
The Metropolitan Police Service officers who bungled the Colin Stagg Case, and top academic Darwinists who have bungled the history of discovery of natural selection have several key characteristics in common:
(1) Breathtaking incompetence
(2) Blinkered decision making
(3) Wholesale failure to follow evidence
(4) Justifying victimization by targeted injustice through a media process of what we might call: "obscure person weirdofication".
All four characteristics are evidenced in the materials provided about the story of Matthew Darwin and Wallace and the discovery of natural selection by clicking the supporting links to the eight numbered examples above.
Furthermore, in relation to characteristic 4, an expert psychologist and the Metropolitan Police used the media to portray Colin Stagg as an obscure personality disordered virgin loner who fits the profile of a rapist and murderer. As it turns out, he has never raped or murdered anyone in his life. Similarly, Darwin (from the 1861 third edition of the Origin of Species onward) and his Darwinists - in the press and Darwinist literature - portrayed Matthew as an obscure writer (a naturalist loner) with a delusional superiority complex who weirdly believed in meteorological catastrophic extinction events. As it turns out, Matthew was far from being an obscure writer (See Weale), Darwin's and Wallace's friend John Lindley perpetrated a proven great myth creation to rob Matthew of the fame and glory of being attributed with being first to introduce giant redwood trees into Britain, and Matthew is today proven correct by facts - as explained first by Dempster - (see also Rapino) and Darwin wrong, because meteorological extinction events most certainly happened.
The Metropolitan police finally apologised to Colin Stagg.
Darwinists have yet to apologise for Darwin and for their own poor scholarship in punterizing us all about Patrick Matthew.
 |
Were they to see and admit to the truth about the obvious and significant newly discovered facts in their field, Darwinists have far more than the the Metropolitan Police Service ever had to lose for doing so in theirs. This is because Darwinisits have a proud 155 year old tradition of credulous pseudo-scholarly Darwin worship and prolific output in "scholarly" publications on the topic. Consequently, we should perhaps expect it to take several years, therefore, for the new evidence to sink into the brains of Darwin scholars.
Who knows, it may never sink in. Perhaps they will simply form the Church of the Immaculate Conception of a Prior Published Theory?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Spam will be immediately deleted. Other comments warmly welcome.
On this blogsite you are free to write what you think in any way you wish to write it. However, please bear in mind it is a published public environment. Stalkers, Harassers and abusers who seek to hide behind pseudonyms may be exposed for who they actually are.
Anyone publishing threats, obscene comments or anything falling within the UK Anti-Harassment and the Obscene Communications Acts (which carry a maximum sentence of significant periods of imprisonment) should realize Google blogs capture the IP addresses of those who post comments. From there, it is a simple matter to know who you are, where you are commenting from, reveal your identity and inform the appropriate police services.