On The Darwin Fact Denial Cult

 After I discovered the new data on who really did read (and then cited in the literature) Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior publication of the full and complete theory of the Process of Natural Selection before Darwin (1858/1859) stole it with the help of the stooge Wallace a number of desperate brown nosing nominals in the Darwin fact denial cult tried to rubbish my name.

Who is Julian Derry AKA J.F. Derry?

Most worryingly he is a Youth Hostel Association employee  see also here who spends much of his demented sad life, when not falsely claiming to be a visiting scientist at the University of Edinburgh (Staff there told managers at Nottingham Trent University and others who have complained about the stalker that they have never heard of him and he is definitely not a visiting scholar there) and flogging his overpriced tacky Darwin statues online to the gullible, endlessly harassing my former employer Nottingham Trent University especially its senior managers and my colleagues with literally hundreds of daily retarded emails because that is where the Darwin  myth was bust) has set up a retarded anti-fact blog that provides us with excellent empirical data to confirm Kuhn's revelations about how such nasty retard creepy little creatures do such things before we obtain a painful fact-led mythbusting paradigm shift in science. 

We should be grateful to Derry for this confirmatory empirical evidence for Kuhn's research.

Here on Derry's little stalker site (scroll to the bottom of it) we see Derry with his fixed hopeless manic grin retardedly trying to convince people that I am some kind of child abuser or terrorist etc and was banned from Twitter for such conduct.

In reality I was banned from Twitter by cancel culture robots for calling the retarded idiot criminals Donald Trump and Boris Johnson "retarded". This is empirical evidence, Darwin fanatics hate empirical facts they don't like and their stalker harassment behaviour proves it. Donald Trump and Boris Johnson are both retarded idiots. The retarded Twitter bots may not like that language but I stand by it. It's goodbye on Twitter (now X) to anyone tweeting about their car having retarded ignition timing.

Students and journalists and anyone else please feel free to use the images (below) in your academic work - or anywhere else

The Empirical Evidence of what Kind of Disgusting Creature is in the Darwin Fact Denial Cult. This is Julian Derry and what he does on Twitter (here)

A few sample examples of more of their (for academic study) valuable desperate anti-scientific behaviour can be found on PatrickMatthew.com. On this page: https://patrickmatthew.com/book-reviews.html 

The Biological Journal of the Darwin worshiping Linnean Society has even facilitated repeat plagiarism of my original research findings on Selby citing Matthew in the 1840's whilst failing to understand its significance and totally failing to engage with the rest of the important New Data.The author of that paper is Dagg. Take a look at his Darwin cult nominal deranged pseudo-science and pseudo-scholarly blog site here. 

These people very clearly need help.

 More Examples of similar lunatic daft dysology are detailed on PatrickMatthew.com Here

Completely mental members of the Darwin cult with aid of their anti-scientific facilitating idiot members are currently writing  - fact denial and fact avoiding - fake reviews of Science Fraud: Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Theory. These individuals must also be thanked and appreciated for adding their corrupt behavior as empirical data to confirm Kuhn's observations on how such nasty idiots try to block new fact-led paradigm shifts in science. There is a great PhD to be done on this topic for someone with a genuine open mind to the scientific basic founding concept of nullius in verba.

ChatGPT wrote a poem about this

In the world of science, where theories collide,

There's a tale of Darwin that I cannot hide,

Dr. Mike Sutton, a criminologist bold,

Dared to question the story that's often been told.

He wrote a book, "Science Fraud" by name,

Challenging Darwin's claim to fame,

But little did he know, a storm would brew,

As Darwin fanatics came to misconstrue.

With fake book reviews, they launched their attack,

Like Kung Fu fighters, there was no turning back,

They pounced on Amazon, their keyboards a blur,

Leaving poor Dr. Sutton in quite the stir.

They claimed he was wrong, they called him a fraud,

But Sutton stood tall, unshaken, unawed,

He'd done his research, and he had his proof,

That Darwin's ideas were a bit aloof.

But the Darwin defenders, oh, what a clan,

They flooded the internet with their digital plan,

Fake accounts and usernames, they had them all,

To discredit Sutton, to make him fall.

They said, "Darwin's our hero, how dare you implore,

That he borrowed ideas from Patrick Matthew before?"

But Sutton, undaunted, stuck to his guns,

For he knew that his research was second to none.

So, beware, dear reader, of the internet fray,

Where fake reviews and fanatics hold sway,

In the world of science, where truths may be skewed,

Remember Dr. Sutton and the battle he's brewed.

For in the end, it's the evidence that should prevail,

Not the keyboard warriors who set sail,

In the sea of opinions, where tempers run high,

Let's seek the truth, and let reason fly.

Free research data on published social media and email cyber stalking and obscene abuse

Would you like to see and then use some actual verifiable and free data on abuse relevant to Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions? Then click HERE

You have heard of Kuhn's Paradigm circle. But have you ever studied the actual data on the abuse received by those who unearth painfully true and veraciously proven new facts that upset the scientific establishment and its fringe-worthy grovelling cronies? https://t.co/Ko6Z7GCth2 pic.twitter.com/N0pYrjzBEw

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) December 27, 2019

Kuhn was right about resistance to paradigm changing discoveries

Kuhn was absolutely right:

Fierce 'fact denial' resistance to paradigm changing discoveries: SEE: classic examplehttps://t.co/BwSq1I5QF8 pic.twitter.com/FNmfLq2YIf

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) November 1, 2016

Original Discovery Creates a New Problem for Darwinists

Good scholarship in any field involves questioning: '...most the the data that best fit your expectations and focus instead upon the unsolved problems, anomalies, and paradoxes of your field.' (Root-Bernstein 1993).

Consequently, the new problem that Darwinists now have to solve is:

How on Earth did Darwin and Wallace discover Natural Selection independently of Matthew's prior published hypothesis of it; despite the newly discovered fact that they were influenced and facilitated on the same topic by naturalists they knew who had long before read and cited Matthew's book, which contains it?

If Darwinists can solve this new problem, rationally and convincingly, in light of just how many of Matthew's original ideas and examples Darwin and Wallace replicated, along with his powerful Artificial Versus Natural Selection Explanatory Analogy of Differences, and his terminology,* then, and only then, can they solve what we might name the Anomalous Paradox Problem of Darwin's and Wallace's Immaculate Conceptions of Matthew's Prior Published Hypothesis.

Of significant note also, is the fact that the problem of claimed independent replication of a full, complete, appreciable, original and unique prior-published, problem solving and game-changing idea, hypothesis or theory, whilst in contact with those who are 100 per cent proven to have read the publication containing it, is unique in the history of scientific discovery to the story of Matthew, Darwin and Wallace. That makes it an anomaly, which has been ignored for the 155 years following the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species.

Kuhn's seminal work on the Structure of Scientific Revolutions explains: 'A shift in professional commitments to shared assumptions takes place when an anomaly subverts the existing tradition of scientific practice.' Darwinists will need now take note that the anomaly of Darwin's and Wallace's essential immaculate conceptions of a prior published theory has been highlighted by the New Data that their influencers had read it before they replicated it. Moreover, the Darwinist 'anomaly dodging' assumption, of Darwin's and Wallace's remarkable honesty, which they have shared and relied upon in order to deal with Darwin's and Wallace's so-called 'independent' discoveries of Matthew's prior published discovery, is newly bust in the light of Wallace's now proven dishonesty and Darwin's blatant lies.

If exceptional claims do require exceptional evidence, then that is exactly what Darwinists must provide now in light of the New Data presented in Nullius.

Notably, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, which means that, to repeat the point already made, what remains in Darwin's and Wallace's massively decimated private correspondence archives, private diaries, and Darwin's torn apart, missing pages and scribbled out text private notebooks and essays – dated as written in the exact same year, or after, Darwin's influential friends and associates, and Wallace's Sarawak paper editor, read and cited Matthew's work - is quite obviously not extraordinary evidence in support of their claimed 'independent' discoveries of Matthew's prior-published discovery of the natural process of selection.

According to Kuhn (1970 p. 62) the characteristics of paradigm changing discoveries include the:

'... previous awareness of an anomaly, the gradual and simultaneous emergence of both observational and conceptual recognition, and the consequent change of paradigm categories and procedures often accompanied by resistance.'

All Kuhn's elements of paradigm change in science are to be found in the story of Matthew, Darwin and Wallace. There is the anomaly of Darwin's and Wallace's 'immaculate conceptions' (independent discoveries) of Matthew's prior published discovery. There is the new BigData ID hi-technology facilitated observation that influential naturalists, known to Darwin and Wallace, in fact did read, and cite, Matthew's book pre-1858, which represents an original, anomaly highlighting, paradigm shifting, discovery of a great paradox in the history of the discovery of natural selection. Finally, there is the fact that the change of paradigm to Darwin and Wallace having been more likely than not influenced by Matthew's prior-published work long before 1858, and the new research procedures I used to bring it into existence, are meeting resistance from those still wedded to the old 'majority view' of Darwin and Wallace as independent discoverers. See for example Dr Mike Weale's position paper on my discovery of the New Data. Every criticism in it can be rebutted by reference to reason and the newly discovered facts (here).

*For the published proof of just how much of Matthew's unique and original 1831 ideas and content Darwin and Wallace replicated see e.g.: (Sutton 2014; Dempster (1995); and Dawkins, in Bryson (ed) (2010).