Plagiarising Science Fraud

Plagiarising Science Fraud
Newly Discovered Facts, Published in Peer Reviewed Science Journals, Mean Charles Darwin is a 100 Per Cent Proven Lying, Plagiarising Science Fraudster by Glory Theft of Patrick Matthew's Prior-Published Conception of the Hypothesis of Macro Evolution by Natural Selection

Friday 29 April 2016


Today this blog post is heavily influenced by some brainy ideas in "Who Will Debunk The Debunkers?" by Daniel Engber (2016) April 28th 2016. 6.30am

Introducing “Rekdal’s Poison Irony Hypothesis”

And so it goes, a whirligig of irony spinning around and around, down into the depths. Is there any way to escape this endless, maddening recursion? How might a skeptic keep his sanity?” (Daniel Engber 2016)  *Archived HERE

Are those in a famously skeptical debunking group, or on a successful debunking campaign trail, more at risk of being blinded by their own smugness so as to be credulously less skeptical about their own conceptions of veracity regarding their own work?

Might this explain why Darwin scholars are in a sociological state of denial about:

(1) the very existence of facts that disconfirm their sacred mere beliefs that no naturalists read Patrick Matthew's original conception of natural selection before 1858?

(2) The plain fact that Darwin really is a proven serial liar in that regard (see Sutton 2014 and Sutton 2016 for the real facts). [UPDATE 2022 See now: "Science Fraud" the book by Mike Sutton. 

And – with exquisitely painful irony – what warning might this serve for meta skeptics such as I?

Rekdal’s Hypothesis is a delightful cautionary hypothesis if ever there was one. But is it likely to be a good explanation for bias and error? Is it (a) Testable? (b) Disconfirmable? (c) Ironically capable of being varied if disconfirmed?

Thursday 28 April 2016

Conspiracy Theory by Proxy

Definition of a "conspiracy theory by proxy"

A conspiracy theory by proxy is where significant, independently peer reviewed, new and independently verifiable, factual, new data-led, paradigm changing discoveries of independently verifiable disconfirming facts, published in the scholarly literature, are summarily dismissed, without evidence, as being a silly conspiracy theory. In such cases, the person creating a 'conspiracy theory by proxy' produces no evidence that the new data discoverer has concocted any kind of conspiracy theory and may also deny that the data is new, deny it is veracious, deny it is significant or deny, without explanation, that it overturns existing knowledge beliefs. If those behaving in such a way have a vested career interest in suppressing the "New Data" then they are perhaps most likely to be either telling a deliberate lie, Frankfurtingly bullshiting (Frankfurt 2005), or else in a group "sociological state of denial" (Cohen 2001).

Ideally, anyone asserting that what has been said is a conspiracy theory should also demonstrate why. Accordingly, in current published absence of an easy reader on the history of discovery of natural selection, I have made some special "flash cards."  These are three from a series of ten lies Darwin told in order to steal Matthew's glory. More details with full references to the historic facts can be found  here. 

Jim Dempster's Correspondence: The Wavertree Letters [Letter 10]

Written in 1996. Undated. But written immediately after publication of his second book. This is the last of the 10 transcribed of the 11 Wavertree Letters from the retired surgeon and pioneering human organ transplant research scientist Jim Dempster to Ian Hardie of the Patrick Matthew Trust
Jim Dempster

Dear Ian,

Thanks for yours of the 11th.

Please give the books away as I have done here. The prof of Zoology at Edinburgh seems a nice guy; send him one. Send them to the academic departments in each big town.

 Hutton. I told you the mess Simmonds got into without looking up my book’s index! I spend some time on Hutton. He is the father of British Geology. Lyell took most of Hutton and added some relevant points and called it Uniformitarianism which dispensed with catastrophes (of Cuvier) and mass extinctions; these are now back after 170 years! If you find some on or thing new – look up the index. Harper will speak on Biodiversity. Diversity was introduced by Cuvier – the four main branches of animal life; he denied any heredity link along the branches but Lamarck added ‘branches’. Matthew introduced ‘diverging ramifications of life forms occupying a new field’ after a catastrophe. Edward Blyth (1835-37) came in with reiterate diversity and ramifications. Darwinists try to argue that Darwin introduced diversity; some mad American thought Darwin lifted divergence from Wallace. See my book. See page 132 for what Darwin missed in South Africa.

Photographs. The only one I have I sent to Australia for a Scot, based in Queensland, who wants to include in his book a word about Matthew.

I am sending you a brief outline of evolutionary paradigms. Paradigm is the ‘in’ word: American, of course! I have given the historical development of the ideas. Now that Cuvier’s catastrophes and mass extinctions are back Matthew’s paradigm is up do date. Darwin hated Cuvier – for some reason. Jealousy? He wrote that the catastrophes had been invented. This is in my book.

I have the impression that Darwinists are not aware that the “Lyell-Darwin evolutionary paradigm’ had abolished catastrophes and mass extinction. Test the audience on this!

Simmonds will not be going to Dundee. There is so much in my book one has to spend weeks on it. Simmonds keeps on finding things and fails to look at my index. I have not missed much and the few points I have missed I have committed to essays. Did I send you ‘the Consequences of punctuated equilibrium’? I have discussed the theory in my book. Gould and Eldredge – lifelong Darwinist propagandists now have a new role an ‘anti-Darwin mode’ which is punctuated eq. This restores the catastrophes and mass extinctions and much else which disagrees with Darwinism. BUT little about Lamarck and Cuvier!

Kilpatrick. No enclosed article! The Scots have forgotten all their great men – Hutton, John Hunter (our Lamarck), Robert Grant (teacher of Darwin at Edinburgh and later prof. at University College, London – 1828). I deal with them in my book. Hunter is our link with Buffon and Lamarck. You could ask Kilpatrick who asked him to write on PM. Strange that pathologists should be interested.

By the way on the ecology front. Matthew was complaining about
Dempster's second book.
Published in 1996
the extravagant use of fertilisers in the 1860s. Guano had been discovered and imported. Also his concern about the forests. The poor nature of nursery trees – Darwin takes up this point and acknowledges Matthew.

For the organisers. Robert Smith is not in the Chambers Nat. Biographical Dictionary. Is he in the Scottish! If not send a brief statement to Prof John Horden, Univ of Stirling.

Addendum – Ecology.

If we accept that ecology is the study of plants and animals in their environment, then we are back to one of Lamarck’s main concepts approved of by no less than Darwin. See the Historical Sketch enclosed. Then turn to the first page, chapter 1 of all editions of the Origin of Species and there is a sentence with ‘the conditions of life’. Enclosed.

Then turn to the Historical Sketch where Matthew is considered and you will find Darwin pointing out that Matthew stressed ‘the conditions of life’. Enclosed. Darwin is very odd about the conditions of life. The phrase occurs all over the Origin and yet he admitted to Professor Semper in 1881! (See the book page 148) that he had not given sufficient weight to ‘the conditions of life’. Look at 2nd paragraph. Was he denying his Lamarckian attachment[?] Darwin was a Covert Lamarckian! Use the Historical Sketch and Lamarck’s concepts and you will find them all in the Origin without any reference to Lamarck. Lamarck referenced once; Cuvier once

The Creator referenced on average 6 times. Citation analysis would award first place to the Creator!

No Creator in Lamarck or Matthew. Stress that because the Origin is supposed to be completely natural science.

See my book page 212 – 2nd para – conditions of life

This is not in the [my] book.

Darwin elsewhere said that he could not find much evidence for ‘the conditions of life’ but that recently more evidence was appearing. Lamarck and Cuvier seem to have had enough evidence before Darwin was born; Matthew in the 1820s saw enough evidence. Some Darwinist may come in with this point. It seems to me that Darwin was hiding his Lamarckism.


Notes and Comments by Mike Sutton

Here we see evidence that Dempster made sure free copies of his self-published book were distributed by the Patrick Matthew Trust, which funded its production.

Most importantly we see also Dempster's analysis of where Matthew's work fits into the various breakthroughs in thinking made in academic development of the field of organic evolution and natural selection. 

Note that Matthew was first with the divergent ramifications of life and that Blyth built upon that only after Matthew and only after, as my original discovery reveals (Sutton 2014), Blyth's editor! Loudon reviewed Matthew's book in 1832 and mentioned the question of Matthew's originality on the question of the "origin of species" no less!. 

 The importance of the bombshell discovery of this Matthew -> Loudon -> Blyth -> Wallace -> Darwin route of possible knowledge contamination is completely lost on many.

Note also that Matthew's book was complete heresy because he excluded any notion of a creator in it - which probably explains, in part, why it was not cited much in the first half of the 19th century. This fact is dealt with at length in Nullius (Sutton 2014). It explains also why, pre-1858, it was banned by the public library of Perth in Scotland and why, pre-1858, a naturalist professor of an esteemed university failed to teach the observations in it for fear of pillory punishment. 

Matthew's (1831) outright mockery of Christianity in his book would, in part, explain why Darwin lied from 1860 onwards that no one had read Matthew's original ideas on natural selection. Perhaps Darwin was afraid of his ideas being proven to have come via knowledge contamination from those of an outright heretic? 

Tuesday 26 April 2016

Polemic for Polans

On Evidence for the Apparent Existence of the De-facto Corporate "MacDarwin Industry" and What it Means for Science.

Focusing on evidence for the apparent existence of a professional allurement of corporate Darwinist pseudo scholarship over independently verifiable fact-led veracity, the main aim of this essay is to pose the telling question: "Why is it that Darwin's newly discovered greatest secret is a 100 per cent proven fact that career-Darwinists are so embarrassingly desperate to go to disingenuously psudoscholalry lengths to deny?"

I will begin with a truism that some of my critics, perhaps in their intellectual-panic to condemn rather than engage with the "New Data", don't seem able to grasp as such. Namely, that what is published in the literature in books, websites and scholarly science journals, such as this one that you are currently reading, is effectively 100 per cent proven to exist. If, in some deep philosophical sense, you doubt the truth of that statement then let us do a very simple experiment to see who is right and who is the most rational. Please place your hand over this paragraph and then remove it. Do this 100 times. Write down how many times out of 100 the word "proven" remains in this sentence. If you doubt the evidence you have before you then repeat the experiment 10,000 times, a million times etc. If still in doubt, apply for a research grant to enable you to expand your sample size and experimental conditions. Who knows, if you can get CERN involved you might find something going on at the sub- atomic level that proves me wrong.

The above point was proven even more humorously, and with great painful irony, when Mr Julian Derry, a  "visiting scientist" at Edinburgh University, author of a book on Darwin in Scotland, and professional Darwin Industry bronze "Darwin's Monkey" paraphernalia seller, took exception to newspaper reports of my lecture on Matthew and Darwin at the James Hutton Institute in Scotland (Alexander 2016a). Mr Derry who wrote a long note from his Edinburgh University email address to the Scottish press, and to several of my friends and associates, (see Alexander, 2016b; Sutton 2016a) to claim, amongst a host of other weird ranting and unsubstantiated claims about me and my research, that:

 “Darwin and Wallace did not plagiarise Matthew, and were not tipped off to his discovery of natural selection by their circle of friends and colleagues. Or rather, if any of this did occur, it has not been shown to have done so by the data presented by Dr Sutton."
“Why I say this, like this, carefully and cautiously, is because as a scientist, I must be confident beyond any reasonable doubt that the data and its interpretation do prove that these events happened as claimed. This is quite a different philosophy to the one underlying Dr Sutton’s research."
“I have never heard a scientist in any discipline use the kind of language that he does to criticise others and qualify his findings, for example, “100% certainty”. Every scientist I know worth their salt doesn’t even have the phrase in their vocabulary.”
Apart from the fact that in his rush to bury disturbing newly discovered and significant facts, that perhaps will threaten the Darwin publication and associated paraphernalia industry, Mr Derry misunderstands that the existence of the 100 per cent proven new discovery of several possible routes of knowledge contamination from Matthew to Darwin and Wallace does not mean that I claim it is 100 per cent proven that Darwin or Wallace were directly or indirectly influenced by Matthew, what I am claiming in that regard is that it is newly 100 per cent proven that they could well have been, because naturalists who they knew are now newly known to have read Matthew's book and the original bombshell ideas in it, because it is now 100 per cent proven that they actually cited Matthew's book, and some mentioned the original ideas in it, in the published literature.

I was allowed a right of reply by the Courier (see Alexander 2016c). The forensic evidence I provided to the journalists and editors of the Courier was released into the public domain in a more genteel manner that you are about to see here. In his own publications in social media, Mr Derry very ironically further refutes his own claims. Because when it comes to the language scientists use to criticise others, it is further 100 per cent proven, by his very own published tweet, embedded in the Patrick Matthew blogsite, that his own obscene language reveals some of the salt he is worth to a respectable scientific community (see Sutton 2016a):

"Look here you supercilious cunt, I told you who I was immediately. Stuff ur haughty "Wasn't  that hard for you was it?" up ur arse."

I have a private scholarly archive of further future historic classic examples of such rabid unscientific language deployed in passionate Darwinist responses to the "New Data" of  hard facts that painfully prove Darwin lied about who he knew had read Matthew's (1831) book and the original ideas in it.

By way of further 100 per cent proof, in response to the peer reviewed publication of my (Sutton 2014a) criminology paper "The hi-tech detection of Darwin’s and Wallace’s possible science fraud: Big data criminology re-writes the history of contested discovery."  Social media was once again used by a Darwinist sholar to abuse my work with taboo foul language. This time with another, lesser taboo "c" word, Professor Nathaniel Comfort (see Sutton 2015a for the 100 per cent proof), a science historian of John Hopkins University, published the following New Year's day 2015  comment to the world:

"The paper's an ignorant piece of crap."

When I most politely invited Professor Comfort to explain his remark about my peer-reviewed article, and to debate the facts of the "New Data" with me in an independently moderated environment, he simply responded by blocking me on Twitter (See Sutton 2015a).

Why are Darwin scholars in such a desperate rush to deny that anything new has been discovered, when the facts prove it so clearly has?

My book 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret' (Sutton 2014) originally revealed the main bombshell discovery from my research that, as opposed to the prior expert knowledge belief (e.g Darwin 1861, de Beer 1962; Mayr 1982) that no naturalists, no biologists, or else no one at all, read the original ideas in it before Darwin and Wallace replicated them, that seven naturalists in fact did read Matthew's (1831) original ideas because it is 100 per cent proven that they actually cited his book in the published literature pre-1858; and that Darwin knew four of them personally, Wallace knew one and that three of those four played major roles at the epicentre and facilitation of their work on natural selection (see Sutton 214). Furthermore, my book (Sutton 2104) originally revealed that it is 100 per cent proven that Darwin (1860) lied when he wrote that no naturalists and (Darwin 1861) no one at all read Matthew's original ideas before Matthew brought them to his attention in 1860, because Matthew (1860a, 1860b) had prior informed Darwin very clearly and in no uncertain terms that at least two naturalists had read them, and fully understood them, and that his book had been banned by the public library of Perth in Scotland because of the heretical ideas on the origin of species that are published in it!

My  new discovery  of the proven pre-1858 readership by naturalists of Matthew's original ideas was reported in the national press of Scotland and also in the national press of the United Kingdom (Knapton 2014). When invited to comment upon the new discovery in my book that other naturalists, known to Darwin and Wallace, in fact had read Matthew's original ideas before 1858, the world renowned Darwnist biographer Professor James Moore, responded with the confident creation of a new Darwinist fallacy, formed from nought but his own unevidenced wishful thinking, without even bothering himself to check the facts, by way of reading the actual book containing them, upon which he was publicly commenting:

“I would be extremely surprised if there was any new evidence had not been already seen and interpreted in the opposite way.”

As a social scientist, I find all of this desperate Darwinist behaviour quite fascinating. But how might we explain it?

Moore's fallacious dismissal (Cohen 2001, p.31) of the "New Data" being anything new might - depending on his state of mind and intentions - be described as (a) 'a psychotic negation of manifest facts'; (b) a 'plugging of leaks' in the orthodox story by lying (Cohen 2001, p.31) (c) a refusal by way of being in a  'state of denial' by dually knowing and not knowing, and thereby refusing to believe it, or else suffering from an inability to 'take it in' (Cohen 2001, p.24), because, if true, the facts of the "New Data" seriously threaten his sense of personal and professional cultural identity.

My findings and further original ideas on how to interpret them were published in this journal (Sutton 2016) , where - citing my book heavily - I took the implications of these discoveries forward with a dynamic typology of 'knowledge contamination' in order to develop our understanding of Darwin's and Wallace's likely culpability, along with that of their associates William Hooker, Joseph Hooker and John Lindley. That article was informally commissioned by Grzegorz Malec, who invited me to write it for peer review on the original findings in my (Sutton 2014) book. Accordingly, I sent the first draft to him personally on Sunday 15th November 2015. Mr Malec wrote back to confirm receipt the following day. I am concerned, therefore that he wrote a review of my book that ignores its main findings regarding who we now know who cited Matthew's (1831) book pre 1858, and what they then went on to do. Because Mr Malecs review of my book focuses on my less important findings about who was apparently first to be second in print with apparently unique Matthewisms. In doing so, Malec effectively presents this relatively minor part of my book as the main findings presented in it. But even in that regard, Mr Malec appears to been able to find only one out of the 30 tentative examples I found can be currently re-butted. 

I must stress, at this appropriate juncture, that I am most grateful for his excellent rebutting in this one regard. His finding shall most certainly be attributed to him in the second edition of my book.  I know Mr Malec has been trying hard to find others to rebutt; although oddly he fails to mention that fact in his review. Instead, he, arguably, somewhat gives the impression that there are others that have been rebutted. Perhaps there are others he knows of? But if there are, he has not yet told us of them. To pose a question: 'How do I know Mr Malec has been working hard trying to find others besides the one out of 30 that he informs us he finally found?' Because he contacted me, revealing inadvertantly, a mistake he made in thinking he had rebutted the fact, originally reported in my book (Sutton 2014) that, contrary to the Kentwood Wells's (1973) mockery of Loren Eiseley's etymological research on Matthew, all the evidence so far from my BigData hi-tech search among over 35 million publications suggests, most surprisingly, that Patrick Matthew does, in fact, at least appear to have coined the term and basic concept of the Peace Corps and that John F.Kennedy's policy wonks, in actual point of evidence-led fact, could well have got it by way of knowledge contamination during their research interviews with missionaries. What Mr Malec fails to add for balance in his criticism of my book can be found instead in the comments section of one of my blog posts (Sutton 2013), where writing in 2015 under what he later admitted by way of email is his pseudonym "GZEMAL" , Malec admits that Patrick Matthew does appear to be first to have coined the term and originated the basic concept of the modern US Peace Corps. So why not - for balance - add that into his review to let readers of this journal know that despite his mere rubbishing rhetoric of my research that the facts show that the troublesome "first to be second hypothesis" is far from debunked, despite his best known efforts, to date, to debunk it?

If Mr Malec can disconfirm more than just the one out of 30 examples in my book, on this theme, I have asked him to let us know. I even set up a competition to encourage he and others to disconfirm this troublesome hypothesis (Sutton 2016b). But even if all 30 examples in my book are disconfirmed, that does not do what Mr Malec thinks disconfirming just one example out of 30 does. Because debunking the first to be second (F2b2) hypothesis would not mean "There is no Darwin's greatest Secret", despite what the dreadfully disingenuous title of Mr Malec's review of my book proclaims. The reason why debing the F2b2 hypothesis does not mean "there is no Darwin's greatest secret" is because Darwin's greatest secret is the main theme of my book, which the same as the main theme of my (Sutton 2016) article in this journal. 

To necessarily repeat the point already made, for emphasis, so that I make myself as profoundly clear as possible, Darwin's greatest secret is that it is newly 100 per cent proven that: 

Surpassing the failure of traditional Darwin scholar rubber thimble paper turning in the libraries of the world, the cutting edge high technology of the Google library project, of some 35 million searchable publications, enabled me to originally discover the "New Data" that 100 per cent  proves Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace fallaciously claimed that no one read Matthew's prior-published discovery and explanatory examples of natural selection before they replicated both. And the "New Facts" 100 per cent prove it, because the proof 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, 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 100 per cent 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. 

In social media I have been accused of being a conspiracy theorist. I don't think I am. Indeed, if I was such a person, I think the easiest one to dream-up would be a fantastical tale that involved imaginings of a "Don't tell Darwin or Wallace" plan to explain why four people, who Darwin knew personally, and one who edited Wallace's Sarawak paper, who knew Darwin to be working on the problem of the origin of species, had read the one book in the world that Darwin and Wallace most needed to read, because it contained the full prior-published hypothesi of macroevolution by natural selection, but deliberately failed to tell them about.

More rationally, I think the contrast between Neil deGrasse Tyson's definition of a conspiracy theory and Stanley Cohen's sociological 'state of denial' is a particularly useful way to assess the importance of the solid and independently verifiable evidence we do have. On April 7th 2011, Neil deGrasse Tyson published on Twitter a fabulously simple definition of conspiracy theories: 'Conspiracy theorists are those who claim coverups whenever insufficient data exists to support what they're sure is true.'  I love that. It's perfect.

By contrast, it is not strictly speaking an actual conspiracy of silence when a number of people, even millions as in Nazi Germany, and later in Chile and Argentina, and when worldwide a few thousand Darwin Scholars today, see hard and independently verifiable evidence but choose not to engage with it. In this regard, the late Stanley Cohen (2011, p. 1) tells us: 'A sociological "state of denial" exists when sufficient evidence is presented but dismissed: '...because the information registers well enough, but its implications - cognitive, emotional or moral - are evaded, neutralized or rationalized away.'

Moreover, Cohen. explains how we can determine culpability in states of denial:
'Except in the most obscure cases, we can reconstruct enough to determine who could have known, must have known or should have known what.' (Cohen 2011, p.126).

Avoiding the scholarly necessity to at least try to engage objectively with the published facts of what has been newly discovered about the routes of knowledge contamination between Matthew and Darwin, the editors and peer reviewers of the Linnean Journal allowed Mike Weale (2015) to summarily dismiss any critical scholarly engagement with the significance of the New Data by writing simply that in his own mere opinion the evidence is weak that Matthew influenced Darwin. This is just one more evidenced example of how the de facto corporate Darwin Industry misleads the public by hiding away from them the facts that salaried academic career biologists, and associated Darwinist historians of science, apparently dare not face.

Darwin (1860, 1861) lied about what he learned from Matthew (1860a; 1860b) regarding Loudon, another unnamed naturalist of an eminent university, and the staff running Perth public library. That lie was enough for credulous Darwin scholars, ignoring the Nullius in Verba motto of the Royal Society, to be thrown off the scent of the routes of prior knowledge contamination from the original ideas of Matthew that Darwin replicated. And Darwin kept up his great lie to the day he died. Ever since, ambitiously credulous, blind-sighted Darwin Scholars have carved out lucrative careers and been rewarded, for example, by the Royal Society with Darwin Medals, for parroting those lies and dressing them up for public presentation as great knowledge-truths (see Sutton 2016).

I don't suppose the Royal Society will anytime soon award anyone it's Darwin medal for proving two of it's earlier medal winners and the medal's namesake published significantly essential tri-independent discovery paradigm supporting fallacies about the pre-1858 readership of Mathew's conception of macro evolution by natural selection!

De Facto Corporate Darwinism 

By way of an explanatory analogy, just as the MacDonald's hamburger chain insists that a junk-food burger and fries in any of their restaurants in Poland must taste and look exactly the same as any in England or the USA etc, the similarly punterizing "MacDarwinisation" of the history of discovery of natural selection seemingly ensures that any book or article, or indeed any book review, containing a "Matthew and Darwin sandwich" must do the same. 

Any ingredients (facts) that change the flavor of traditional "MacDarwin" junk-scholarship are thereby rejected by the managers' (Darwin scholars) in the quality control department (university employment panels, editorial boards and expert peer reviewers). Any restaurants (journals, publishing houses) refusing to comply will be abandoned by managers (Darwin scholars) afraid for their careers. On which note, it cannot pass unremarked that the esteemed Darwinist historian Dr John van Wyhe either left the Expert Advisory board of this journal - Philosophical Aspects of Origin - as soon as my fact-led peer-reviewed article on Darwin's lying glory stealing science fraud (Sutton 2016) was published, because he did so in protest, or else it was just an unfortunate coincidence. Wherever the truth lies, immediately after Dr van Wyhe's resignation, the Journal's editor, Dariusz Sagan, with some email prompting research maneuverings to the press on my own part to seek out the truth, was compelled to make the following statement to the Scottish press, via an email to the Journalist Michael Alexander of the Scottish newspaper: the Courier:

'It is true that Dr. John van Wyhe was the member of the Advisory Board of our journal and resigned from it shortly after Dr. Mike Sutton’s article had been published. However, he didn’t reveal his reasons. Obviously, Dr. van Wyhe was entitled to resign from the board at any point and we respect his decision. We are not especially eager to speculate on the topic of his resignation, but, of course, one of the possibilities is that it was related to the publication of the controversial article of Dr. Sutton. We had not explicitly stated earlier our editorial policy, as we believed it was clear to anyone who looked into the broad range of the articles published in the journal. As things stand now, our editorial policy has been published on our website in order to avoid misunderstanding.'

Whether he intended it or not, by resigning from the journal's expert advisory board after the publication of my article (Sutton 2016), van Wyhe has effectively distanced himself from professional involvement with the uncomfortable facts in my article. Facts, which make it an unwanted flavour apart - because it contains essentially tri-independent discovery paradigm busting hard-data. And such data, it seems, is must be kept apart from those sold by any journal that wishes to remain within the apparently de facto "MacDarwin Corporation" of the so-called "Darwin Industry".

There are important messages here for those starting out in and wishing to remain in careers associated with biology and the history of discovery of natural selection. I can, at the time of writing these words, think of no other science journal ,other than 'Philosophical Aspects of Origin', which would be prepared to publish the evidence to prove the fact that Darwin lied about the pre-1858 readership of Matthew's ideas. Sending factual torpedoes such as that, to sink the myths keeping the pervasive, powerful and lucrative "Darwin Industry" armada of books, articles and associated memorabilia afloat is likely to get one labelled as an unwelcome, unprofitable, troublemaker.

Relatedly, on the topic of the "New Corporate University", it has been noted that:

 " Pandering to the intellectual tastes and preferences of journal editors may be the most effective means of career advancement, which rewards conformity rather than originality." West (2016)

Frequently made criticisms, and frequently asked questions, about the "New Data"

I have been presented with many criticisms and asked many telling questions by Darwin scholars since the 2014 publication of my original discovery of the 'New Data' about who we now newly know really did read Matthew's ideas before 1858, because they cited his 1831 book in the literature. However, it has been more than 12 months since I have encountered any that are new. A long list of these criticisms, and associated questions and answers can be found on the website, specifically on the 'Darwinist Defences Rebutted page (see Sutton 2015).

On which note, please note further that, in his review of my book, Mr Malec raises no original arguments against the New Data. Unfortunately, this observation is not particularly discernable from the opinions he presents as his own criticisms in his book review. By way of just one example, Malec makes a meal of earlier published criticisms of the work of the esteemed historian outcast of the de facto "MacDarwin Corporation" of science, Loren Eiseley. Mr Malec presents the well known published criticisms of Eisley in his criticism of my book, implying therein that I was unaware of them. In reality, the etymological fallacy issue Malec raises is raised at length in my book with reference to the Darwin scholars, Gould and Wells, who first made them about Eiseley's work. But in his one-sided conformist "Corporate Darwin Industry" flavoured cherry picking on this topic, Malec fails to provide the objective balance that I aim for when I present the actual research evidence, which absence of any evidence in his best effort hatchet-job review suggests, none have yet been able to refute, that exposes Gould's (1983; 2002) confident assertions as a ludicrous "Frankfurtian bullshitting" etymological fallacy of his own when Gould claimed the term 'natural selection' was common currency in the literature.  

Moreover, in further seemingly safely conformist keeping with the apparent de-facto requirements of "MacDarwinist" scholarship, Mr Malec obediently keeps out of his review of my book particular "de facto banned ingredients" of the "MacDarwin Corporation", In making his "Matthew and MacDarwin sandwich", Malec dutifully cherry-steps away writing about Eisley's (1979) profound discovery that Darwin, in his private essay of 1844, replicated Matthew's hugely important artificial versus natural selection explanatory analogy of differences, using the exact same example of trees raised in nurseries versus those growing in the wild. But this banned ingredient is in my book, and it is highly significant in terms of Gould's cherry-stepping to ignore it.  Moreover, this important discovery by Eiseley is discussed in depth in my book regarding what the first to be second hypothesis tells us about Robert Mudie, David Low and their direct links to Darwin and his other influencers (see Sutton 2015b). 

Perhaps what Gould left out and what Malac leaves out in his review of my book is all just an unfortunate dual-coincidence and has nothing at all to do with the seemingly de facto "banned ingredients" that must never be used by an ambitious academic wishing to succeed in a world dominated by powerful "MacDarwinists"?

The Seemingly de facto Banned Facts that are, Apparently, Not Permitted in a "Matthew and MacDarwin Corporation Sandwich" and the apparently de-facto "rules" for dealing with them

  1. Never mention the fact that Darwin wrote the opposite to what Matthew told him in the pages of the Gardeners Chronicle of 1860 about the prior readership of On Naval Timber (Matthew 1831)and the original ideas in it (see sutton 2016). If, however, you are forced to mention it then see point 2 below.
  2. If ever you are forced by debate to mention Darwin's lies, always deny that they are lies. Never admit that Darwin wrote falsehoods, that he knew to be false at the time he wrote them about the prior-readership of Matthew's original ideas on natural selection. Never admit that those falsehoods were absolutely necessary to create a paradigm that makes Darwin's and Wallace's independent conceptions of Mathews prior published ideas plausible.  If cornered in such a debate argue that Darwin's effectively literally necessary falsehood was not meant to be taken  literally. If called on your stupidity: run away, clam up, write obscene language, make unfounded ludicrous accusations against Sutton. Also claim he has discovered nothing new and, unlike you, and those he has proven wrong, claim he does not understand science.
  3. Deny that the Royal Society Darwin Medal winners Ernst Mayr and Sir Gavin de Beer meant it  to be taken literally when they wrote, literally in defence of Darwin's replications of Matthew's original work, that no one whatsoever/no biologists read Matthew's prior-published original ideas pre-1858 (see Sutton 2016 in this regard). Deny they meant it literally, despite the fact that such literal interpretation of what they clearly wrote is absolutely necessary to support the paradigm of Darwin and Wallace's independent discovery of Matthew's prior-published hypothesis.
  4. Never mention Eiseley's bombshell discovery that Darwin's private essay of 1844 incredibly replicated Matthew's artificial versus natural selection analogy of difference between trees grown in nurseries and those grown in the wild. 
  5. Never mention that books and scholarly articles and book chapters on trees and naval timber were immensely popular with the scientific community in the first half of the nineteenth century. In particular, never mention Evelyn's book (1664)    classic work Silva: or, a discourse of forest-trees, and the propagation of timber in His Majesty's dominions.Is the first and most treasured book published by the Royal Society. Instead parrot Darwin's feeble excuse that no one (implying himslef) can be blamed for failing to read an obscure book on naval architecture and forest trees were of interest to himslef or any other natururalist. At all costs never mention the number of such books in Darwin's private notebook of books read (see Sutton 2016 for the forbidden facts). 
  6. Never mention the fact, proven in Matthew's (1860a) letter to the Gardener's Chronicle, and read by Darwin, that his ideas on natural slection most certainly were not merely contained within the appendix of his book. And never mention the fact that Darwin (1861) is proven to have lied when he claimed they were. He is proven to have lied, because he admitted they were not contained merely in the book's appendix in a private letter to his best friend the naturalist Jospeh Hooker (see Sutton 2014, 2016 for the full details). Instead, always parrot the myth started by Darwin (1860, 1861) that Matthew hid his ideas away in the appendix of an inappropriately titled book.
  7. Never mention the fact that Darwin held in his hands five books that cited Matthew's (1831) On Naval Timber and Arboriculture. (See Sutton 2014).
  8. When claiming Matthew's book was obscure, never mention the fact it was cited pre-1858 in the  hugely influential Encyclopedia Britannica and heavily advertised within it (see Sutton 2014).
  9. Never mention the laws and rules on sedition and heresy on the question of the origin of species that forbade discussion of the bombshell ideas in Matthew's book in the first half of the 19th century. Never mention the violent reform riots that broke out in Britain in the year it was published. Instead ask credulously why more people did not cite Matthew's book and mention the heretical ideas in it and why Matthew did not "trumpet his bombshell discovery from the rooftops" if he understood the importance of what he had written (see Sutton 2014).  Consequently, you must never mention that Matthew informed Darwin in their published Gardener's Chronicle letters (see Sutton 2014 for the details) that his book was banned by the public lending library of Perth in Scotland (nicknamed the Fair City) for his heretical scientific ideas on the origin of species.
  10. Ask why no one came forward and accused Darwin of plagiarising Matthew after 1858. In doing so never mention the facts revealed by Sutton (2014) regarding just how many, who would almost certainly have known, were old, dead and retired by then, or else were friends and associates of Darwin and (unlike Matthew) were ambitiously conservative members of Darwin's elite 'old-boy-network' scientific clubs. Never mention that the vast majority of gentleman naturalists of the 19th century were anti-Chartists - and that Matthew was a famous Chartist representative for Scotland and that he wove his political chartist and vehemently mocking anti religious ideas throughout his 1831 book. In this context, be sure not to mention that, unlike Matthew, Darwin kept a plainly stated accepted belief of the idea of "The Creator" in all editions of the Origin of Species. Also be sure not to focus on the manner and customs of the "gentleman naturalists" of the 19th century,which would have made it a complete and utter professionally suicidal faux pas to accuse another in print of plagiarism (see Sutton 2014 for an in-depth evidence-led discussion). 
  11. If you must cite the fact that Loudon reviewed Mathew's book in 1832, write that he possibly did not understand what was in it. Never reveal that he actually wrote that Matthew appeared to have something original to say on, to use his precise words: "the origin of species"!
  12. Never follow the data to any place that disconfirms the triumphant tri-independent discovery paradigm. Under no circumstances mention the fact Loudon, after 1832, went on to edit two of Blyth's most influential articles on organic evolution (see Sutton 2014).
  13. Never mention the fact that to date, out of an examination of over 35 million publications (see Sutton 2014), Matthew was apparently first to coin the term 'natural process of selection' and that Darwin was apparently first to re-shuffle the exact same four words into the only possible grammatically correct second usage of them to apparently first coin the term 'process of natural selection' to name Matthew's original conception while claiming it as his own independent conception. (See Sutton 2104).
  14. Claim the terms 'natural selection' and 'artificial selection' were either coined by Darwin, or else, contrariwise, that they were standard terms in the literature pre 1859. Never mention Sutton's discovery that they were apparently exceedingly rare but that Darwin certinly never coined them (See Sutton 2014).
  15. Never mention that fact that when he writes that some of what he has originally discovered is 100 per cent proven Sutton (Sutton 2014, 2016) very clearly and plainly explains that he has 100 per cent proven that Mathew's book was cited by seven naturalists pre-1858 and that Darwin knew four of them and Wallace knew two and that they both were influenced and their work facilitated by them before 1858. Never mention that Sutton means it is now 100 per cent proven that knowledge contamination routes from Matthew's 1831 book to the pre-1858 brains of both Darwin and Wallace are now 100 per cent proven to exist. Never mention that fact that when he writes about what is 100 per cent proven, Sutton is also referring to the fact Darwin lied by writing the exact opposite to what Matthew, in 1860, had prior informed him in writing about the prior readership of his ideas. Instead, be disingenuous by writing a new fallacy in order to kickstart a new "MacDarwin myth". In this regard, the success of "New MacDarwin Myth" requires you to claim that Sutton is claiming that it is 100 per cent proven that Darwin definitely read Matthew's book before 1858.
  16. Never mention the eight lies that Darwin told in order to achieve primacy over Matthew for Matthews prior-published ideas (see Sutton 2014 for the full details).
  17. Never mention the most curious fact that Darwin was totally incurious about how it possibly happened that Matthew so fully "anticipated" Darwin and Wallace for the discovery that Darwin spent most of his scientific life writing about. Never ask, as Sutton (2014) does, why Darwin was not interested in Matthew as a person and was uninterested in his experience, expertise and observations and his many other publications, as a farmer and noted botanist, plant breeder and agriculturalist. And never mention this curious fact in relation to the fact that Darwin spent his working life studying and writing about the work of other breeders and agriculturalists.
  18. Never mention the fact that Matthew fought all his life in the press for full recognition for his bombshell discovery and proven influence on other naturalists who he knew read his book (Sutton 2014). Instead claim only that Darwin treated Matthew very fairly by fully acknowledging his publication priority. 
  19. Claim that Suton (2014) has discovered nothing new.
  20. Never mention the fact that Sutton claims his original bombshell discoveries, of who we newly know definitely did read Matthew's 1831 book and the bombshell ideas in, because they cited both in the literature, 100 per cent proves that the old Darwinist paradigm of tri-independent discovery of the hypothesis of macroevolution by natural selection rests on the punctured myth that no one who could possibly have influenced Darwin and Wallace pre-1858 with Matthew's ideas. Accordingly, never mention Sutton's (2014, 2016) conclusive evidence-led claim that, rationally as scientists, we must now have a revolutionary new discovery paradigm (Kuhn 1962) that places Mathew over Darwin and Wallace as the greatest immortal, discoverer, original thinker and likely influencer of both Darwin and Wallace on natural selection.
  21. Above all, always follow the hypocritical golden rule of seemingly de facto corporate Darwinism: "Cherry-pick whatever small fact you can find in order to seek to undermine the "New Data" on the discovery of natural selection and cherry-step away from any facts, especially all the known and independently verifiable facts (see Sutton 2014, 2016), that quite obviously and clearly disconfirm the Darwinist tri-independent discovery paradigm.

Does it really matter?
I would direct anyone asking me this question about whether historical facts in the history of scientific discovery really matter to Edzard Ernst's (2015) book 'A Scientist in Wonderland'. Ernst tells the story of how his presentation of the facts that homeopathic remedies have never been proven to be effective as a medicine led to his professional persecution by employees of Prince Charles and Exeter University, effectively undermining his health and forcing him into early retirement. Ernst has written about how allowing scientific myths and fallacies, and denying disconfirming facts, created an enabling environment in which human atrocities flourished in Nazi Germany. To necessarily invoke 'Godwin's Law', I suggest to anyone who does not see this point to go now and Google the phrase "The Man who refused to salute Hitler". Having done so, if reading the historical story of August Landmesser does not teach you anything then you have not learnt why it is important to learn from history when it is important to know exactly when the "majority view" is held by independently verifiable hard-fact denying idiots. Because if we fail to learn such lessons then we will be forever doomed to repeat the past mistakes of humankind. And that is one definition of living in Hell.

Paradoxically, supporting - or else being indifferent towards - a proven idiotic "majority view" is seemingly the safest immediate bet for any one individual. This observation explains both psychologically and sociologically why so many people, including scientists, supported the Nazis in wartime Germany and why so many biologists comply with corporate Darwinism. But in the long term, the group - meaning more of the individuals in it - suffers terribly for failing to address the truth by studying the real facts of any matter and then admitting they are veracious and interpreting, rationally, what they mean. Ironically, we are talking here about the need to "adapt or die" at the immediate and long term individual and group level.

History teaches us that we humans do rather badly when we fail to adapt to new facts. And that is why we should all care more about veracity and less about the more immediate pressing career demands to conform to today's corporate university and "MacDarwin" culture.

Conclusions and the way forward
Darwinists, named for their much deified hero, have traditionally worshipped Darwin for his honesty, integrity and originality. The "real facts" 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 (Kuhn 1962) teaches us that paradigm changes in science take time and are at first met with fierce resistance. I think I have demonstrated some early examples of such fierce resistance in this essay, by recording here, for historical purposes, the dreadfully abusive and pseudo-scholarly public, published, reactions of junior and senior Darwin scholars to the new independently verifiable, hard-evidence-led, natural selection discovery paradigm of 'More Likely Than Not Matthewian Knowledge Contamination'.

Darwinists, are compelled to deny the importance of the "New Data", because their worship of Darwin is like a stack of dominoes. If one of the "New Facts" is acknowledged then the whole stack tumbles.

Explanations for why expert Darwin scholars failed to see the obvious and significant fact that Darwin lied when confronted by Matthew in the Gardeners Chronicle in 1860, can be understood in terms of 'blindsight' cognitive bias, and other explanations provided by Cohen's (2001) States of Denial within the context of the so called "Darwin Industry" operating within a highly pervasive and controlling "corporate" framework. The same thing explains why, unlike I, they failed to "follow the data" on John Loudon.

Veracity regarding the data of how great discoveries are made is important. The history of scientific discovery informs us how scientists conduct their research. It teaches us how to avoid errors, when not to give up and how information of all kinds can be capitalised upon to make further quantum leaps in great thinking. In that regard, it is obvious that we need a veracious history of the discovery of natural slection, which is, arguably, the unifying theory of biology. To re-phrase the old truism about data analysis of all kinds - "rubbish in - rubbish out." The majority view - whether held by the majority of Germans in Nazi Germany or the majority of scientists about Matthew and Darwin - can be held by idiots. The cases of Landmesser and Matthew teach us that. And that is a great and valuable lesson for mankind. But it may yet be lost on the majority.


Alexander, M. (2016a) The Courier. 'English academic says Scots farmer could be true origin of Charles Darwin’s most famous theory.' March 15th.

Alexander, M.(2016b) The Courier. 'Darwin academic accused of ‘poor and lazy research’'. March 16th:

Alexander, M. (2016c) The Courier. 'Academic accused of ‘weirdly closed mind’ as Perthshire Charles Darwin row continues.'

Darwin, C (1861). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, 3rd ed. London. John Murray,

de Beer, G. (1962) “The Wilkins Lecture: The Origins of Darwin’s Ideas on Evolution and Natural Selection”, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol. 155, no. 960, pp. 321-338

deGrasse Tyson, N. (2011) Twitter:

Cohen, S. (2001) States of Denial.  Cambridge. Polity.  

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

Ernst, E. (2015) A Scientist in Wonderland: A Memoir of Searching for Truth and Finding Trouble.  Kindle Edition, England Andrews UK.

Gould, S. J (1983) Unorthodoxies in the First Formulation of Natural Selection. Evolution, Volume 37. No. 4.July.

Gould, S. J. (2002) The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Harvard. Harvard University Press.

Kuhn, T. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (second edition, enlarged). Chicago. University of Chicago Press

Knapton, S. (2014) Did Charles Darwin 'borrow' the theory of natural
selection? The Telegraph, 28 May.

Matthew, P. (1860a)  Letter to The Gardeners’ Chronicle, “Nature’s Law of Selection”,
Gardeners’ Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette 7 April 1860, pp. 312-313, http://darwin-online. .

Matthew, P.(1860b), Letter to The Gardeners’ Chronicle, “Nature’s Law of Selection”, The
Gardeners’ Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette 12 May 1860, p. 433,

Mayr, E, (1982), The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution and Inheritance, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, p. 499.

Sutton, M. (2013) Good Grief! In 1839, A Remarkable Scotsman Appears to have Invented the Peace Corps - Not President Kennedy or any of his Associates.  
Dysology and CriminologyThe Blog of Mike Sutton :

Sutton, M. (2014) 
Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s Greatest Secret, Cary, NC. Thinker Books. Thinker Media Inc. 
Sutton, M. (2014a) "The hi-tech detection of Darwin’s and Wallace’s possible science fraud: Big data criminology re-writes the history of contested discovery.". Papers of the British Criminology Conference.  Vol. 14: 49-64 Panel Paper. pp. 1-16.

Sutton, M. (2015) Hard Facts and Rational Argument. Darwinist Defences Rebutted page. Patrick

Sutton, M. (2015a) A Cordial and Gentlemanly Invitation to the Darwinist Assistant Prof. Nathaniel Comfort to Rationally Explain Himself. Dysology and Criminology, the blog of Mike Sutton. Best Thinking.

Sutton (2015b) On the First to be Second (F2b2) Hypothesis.  Dysology and Criminology: The Blog of Mike Sutton.

Sutton, M. (2016) On Knowledge Contamination: New Data Challenges Claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Independent Conceptions of Matthew’s Prior-Published
Hypothesis. Philosophical Aspects of Origin 2015, vol. 12.

Sutton, M. (2016a) On Knowledge Contamination. March 21st. The Patrick Matthew Blogspot:

Sutton,M.(2016b) Errors and Updates. Patrick

Wells, K. D. (1973) The Historical Context of Natural Selection. The Case of Patrick Matthew. Journal of History of Biology. Vol. 6. No. 2. pp. 225-258.
West, D. (2016)  The Managerial University: A failed experiment. Demos.