The Patrick Matthew Effect in Science

 Read about "The ‘Patrick Matthew Effect’ in Science"

              By Dr Mike Sutton and Professor Mark Griffiths

Pages 213-229

In Academic Integrity in the Social Sciences: Perspectives on Pedagogy and Practice. Published by Springer: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-43292-7

You may have heard of "The Matthew Effect in Science"  and so the "Patrick Matthew Effect" is incredibly important and ironic for those who have written about the Matthew Effect but are uninterested in Patrick Matthew precisely because of The Matthew Effect.

This chapter provides empirical archived evidence that Wikipedia is deliberately suppressing the facts about who did read and cite Matthew's 1831 book and the unique breakthrough in it before Darwin and Wallace replicated his unique breakthrough and lied that no one read (even after they were told it was read and cited). Moreover, it names two authors and the Darwin worshipping and his fraud enabling and facilitating  Biological Journal of the Linnean Society in which the facts are being further suppressed by their blind-sight of the new data and new pivoting ludicrous claims that Darwin could not have plagiarized or been influenced by Matthew. One of the named ludicrous Darwin worshipping authors very seriously and maliciously harassed the first author at his place of work (leading to a university investigation headed by a professor of law in which all the allegations were thrown out and branded childish, ridiculously disingenuous and very strange) and both those harassing fanatical authors are in a vindictive fact denial triangle of plagiarism and revenge harassment behaviour with another desperate Darwin fanatic, Julian Derry (a Youth Hostel Association worker) who has for years criminally harassed professor Mark Griffiths at Nottingham Trent University for daring to support the empirical data on Darwin's plagiarism of Patrick Matthew. These demented Darwin fanatics are named and exposed in "Science Fraud" the book by Dr Mike Sutton.

Read more on Professor Mark Griffith's Research Gate page on this chapter HERE : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374859411_The_'Patrick_Matthew_Effect'_in_Science

On Charles Darwin Harassment Fanatics: Dysology and "The Lads"

THIS BLOG POST IS PUBLISHED IN THE PUBLIC AND ACADEMIC INTEREST AS A FULLY EVIDENCED EXAMPLE OF THE TYPE OF THING THOMAS KUHN DESCRIBED AS TYPICAL FIERCE REACTIONS TO PARADIGM CHANGING DISCOVERIES IN SCIENCE AND THE HISTORY OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY


Professor Brian J Ford has written about the cult of Darwin worship in our institutions of science and how its underbelly inhabitants attack anyone who dares to question Darwin's originality and honesty.

In this blog post I provide actual, independently verifiable data, of the sort of anti-science, and infantile attempts at revisionist history dysology, they get up to. 

Thomas Kuhn famously wrote about attacks on those whose research findings bring about a paradigm change in science. Such attacks attempt to bring the forces of chaos into the realm of science with an aim to extinguish the flame of human knowledge progress. What follows is a source of actual data - provided by a victim (me) of such dysologically radicalized individuals - for use by the scientific community on the fanatical anti-scientific behavior of radical Darwinite extremists.  

After he had kindly read through a draft of my 500 page e-book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret in 2014, Professor Donald Forsdyke  made several suggestions for its improvement and wrote in an email that I should tone it down considerably or else face vicious harassing attack in my place of work (then Nottingham Trent University) by a group of unnamed individuals he referred to collectively as the "The Lads".

Forsdyke wrote that he was concerned that unlike himself, I had years of work to go in paid employment in academia and that "The Lads" could curtail that career with their endless harassment. I was as unconcerned then as I am now by such threats. I was 55 years of age in 2014 and with two of the best pensions in the world, seeing how dunder-headed infantile managerialism has wrecked our universities, intended to retire before my 60th birthday. I did so on reaching 59 years of age.

This blog is about the unethical and fanatical activities of some of those "Lads" Forsdyke warned me about. Childish kidult Darwin fanatics!

Within a few days of the publication of my book and an article about it in the UK broadsheet newspaper, The Telegraph, written by it's science editor Sarah Knapton. In that article career Darwin biographer James Moore (of the Open University) was quoted as responding anti-scientifically to the totally newly discovered facts he had not even read - and had certainly never heard of before - in typical apocryphal Semmelweis Reflex by proxy fashion “I would be extremely surprised if there was any new evidence had not been already seen and interpreted in the opposite way.” Then a second Darwin Lad got himself involved to protect his Royal Society majesty King Charles Darwin. Dr Mike Weale was communicating with me - using an anonymous pseudonym - via the comments section on the article, now deleted by the Telegraph, but many are in the archive I made of it four years ago.

Weal thereafter set up his website and began discussing the issues with me on that site and via email. His website is "The Patrick Matthew Project". That site looks to me like nothing more in reality than a propaganda stealth instrument to try desperately argue that Darwin never plagiarized Matthew and never lied when he did plagiarize and lie. Just like the utter nonsense Wiki-Darwiboppers (Weale is one) write on Wikipedia's Patrick Matthew webpage, it's a waste of time trying to get between a fool and their errand, which is an old adage confirmed as Weale's behaviour would become rabid when he escalated to writing to my employer to complain about me. But I'm getting ahead of myself.  I write more on the fool Weale's malicious correspondence later in this blog post.

Around the same time as the Telegraph article was published, George Beccaloni - then curator of the Wallace Collection at the Natural History Museum London (now an employee of the Charles Darwin Trust no less!) posted what is essentially a fake review of my book, Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret, on the Facebook page of the Richard Dawkin's Foundation. My publisher Bob Butler called him out on the fact he knew Beccaloni had not even read my book, despite making claims about its contents as though he had (here and archived here). Clearly "The Lads" were starting to get busy, just as Professor Forsdyke warned.

As we have seen in my posts here in 2020, a growing number of proper scientists accept that the New Data I have originally unearthed with the IDD BigData research method proves that Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace more likely than not plagiarized Patrick Matthew's complete and prominently prior-published theory of evolution by natural selection. Arlin Stoltzfus was, in 2016 (here - more precisely here in the comments section of a blog) one of the first brave rational expert scholars to look at that newly unearthed evidence and reach the obviously correct conclusion that Darwin was  most likely a serial liar and was a plagiarizer in that regard. Most importantly, he being a proper scientist - unlike most who newly know of the new found facts but perhaps fear "The Lads" - was not afraid to stand up and say so on the record on several occasions. Science needs more proper scientists, as opposed to those uncritical scholars Stolzfus refers to as "the zombie horde."

Dr Stoltzfus is Research Biologist at the USA National Institute of Standards and Technology.

In the link provided in this blog post to the desperate Darwin defending website of Dr Mike Weale you can see how this Darwin's "Lad" Weale gets himself emotionally tied up with his Darwin worship into silly irrational linguistic-yoga-knots by trying to deny the logical reality of Dr Stolzfus's completely rational and fact based arguments on Darwin's lies.

Incidentally, for the record of how the Darwin "Lads" seek to bury painful facts by attacking their original discoverer, Weale slyly tried to set the Vice Chancellor (VC) of my university (Nottingham Trent)  on me - knowing full well as a senior academic (Reader in Statistical genetics himself at the university where my VC had graduated) was an attack on my livelihood as Reader in Criminology and my entire senior academic career - therefore an economic attack on my dependent family. Weale's ludicrously childish and disingenuous malicious communication lengthy "Lad" rambling email-letter of complaint (I have a copy of it)  to my employer was mostly about my mocking outing of  his fellow "Lad" Dr John van Wyhe for calling me a conspiracy theorist in an email to a journalist immediately after suspiciously resigning from the editorial board of the expert peer reviewed academic journal that had just published my bombshell article on who we now newly know actually did read and cite Matthew's 1831 book and ideas before Darwin and Wallace stole them and Darwin alternately claimed no naturalist/no one whatsoever had prior read them. Weale sought also - and failed miserably - to ridicule the devastating facts I have originally unearthed.

My then employer (As said, I am now very comfortably retired from the civil service and university) Nottingham Trent University, investigated Weale's complaint with an HR team headed by a Professor of Criminal Justice.  They found Weal's essential allegations of academic misconduct unfounded and concluded that his complaint was disingenuous. One thing they pointed out was how Weale essentially begged me to keep debating - around and around in circles - with him on his website and it was only after I stoically refused that he then sent his malicious communication to my employer. (You can find archived files all of the debates I , and others had, in the comments section on Weale's website at the end of this blog post).

After being cleared of any academic misconduct, I was subsequently advised by university management staff  to report Weale to his VC for his malicious communication to my employer academic misconduct if I so wished. I could have taken it further than that. But unlike Weale, I was then and remain content for the malicious behaviour of he and his fellow Darwin fanatical "Lads", with whom he is proven to be networked on social media and his own website, to speak for itself in the historic publication record for future scholars to use in their studies into vicious, yet futile, resistance to paradigm changes in science and the history if science. As I said, I have all the emails. I have the report of the findings of the inquiry that followed Weal's malicious email letter.  And I have archived more of 'The Lad's' malicious and raving bonkers desperate internet activities - including cyberstalking and endless criminal malicious communication harassment by way of many emails and social media publications targeting my colleagues, co-author Professor Mark Griffiths, close friends, senior managers at Nottingham Trent University, peer reviewed journal editors, book publishers and even my post graduate students! Targeting anyone for endless harassment by emails to their university email accounts and via malicious whacked out harassment blog-sites who is in any way related to me or even the general field of criminology, has written a word of support, provided a platform for dissemination of the newly unearthed and expert peer reviewed facts or reported on them. Targeting people I don't even know for email harassment merely because they are eminent criminologists. All of this data has been collected and saved forensically - some of which is clearly evidence of criminal harassment - is now held by others pending action.


What Professor Trevor Palmer writes below is what science is supposed to look like. Namely, when their earlier thoughts and subsequent conclusions are dis-confirmed with independently verifiable newly discovered evidence proper scientists change their minds accordingly. Unlike Darwin cultists who seek to bury the painful facts under a stinking pile of their constant lies, harassment and laughably unscientific Darwibopper claptrap.



One of the Darwin superfan "Lads" has even committed gross academic misconduct by way of blatant plagiarism in the Linnean Journal of my original (See e.g. Sutton 2014 and 2015) expert peer reviewed discovery that Selby (Wallace's Sarawak paper editor) cited Matthew before Wallace wrote a single word about natural selection in his private notepad. The culprit here is the totally obsessed harassing cyber-stalker "Lad" Dr Joachim Dagg - who has been weirdly, obsessively, publishing absolute nonsense about many areas of my published work - not just the bombshell findings about Darwin and Wallace. Dagg's sly plagiarism of my original, expert peer reviewed. and prominently published work about Selby, which he has proven elsewhere, earlier, that he read, because he commented on it in writing, is in the very same Journal that published the 1858 papers of Darwin and Wallace, which stole Matthew's original prior-published theory and in which each plagiarist claimed to have independently conceived it. He even stupidly brags about not citing me in the article in which he plagiarized me by way of a comment on Wikipedia (here). The Linnean journal sure does scrape the dregs of the barrel doesn't it. Just like Wikepdia, the world's worst encyclopedia, then.

For future critical and ethical scholarship into criminal and deviant behaviour among scientists and those on the fringes of science (facilitated by such dodgy organisations as Wikipedia and the Linnean Society) the misdeeds of Darwin's 'Lads' - including fully referenced proof of Dagg's knowing plagiarism in the Linnean Journal - can be found fully referenced and safely archived on the Patrick Matthew website - click HERE.

As said, I have Weale's malicious  email to the VC of Nottingham Trent University. I have also a copy of van Wyhe's email to the journalist in question, and one day, in published print (only under expert legal advice), the public will see exactly what Darwin's 'Lads' got up to in what I think essentially amounts to their pathetic yet nasty attempts to re-bury the newly unearthed bombshell truth about Darwin being a liar and plagiarizing science fraudster by glory theft. By attacking the discoverer they tried to discredit me in order to try, it appears to me, to discredit the independently verifiable, expert peer reviewed, new bombshell evidence they so hate. That sort of thing is the oldest trick in the book, and we all know it.


 Darwin and Wallace have been proven to be liars and plagiarists. Of course something like that can be 100% proven to exist. If it's printed or published and in your hands it is there. Just as Weal's malicious email 100% exists, as does van Wyhe's. Cover either email with your hand 100 times. When does it disappear? Most importantly, does it vanish from the publication record? Try it a million times. You will get exactly the same result 100% of the time. Publications in the publication record are like fossils in the geological record. They 100 per cent do exist and that can be 100 per cent proven. They do not fail to exist before or after we know of their existence. They are there. They are real. They are in the publication record.

Perhaps these magical thinking desperate Darwin worshiping fools who claim Darwin is not a proven liar and plagiarist spend years covering Darwin's published and proven lies with their trembling hands on video in the hope of them just magically vanishing once? Perhaps they will argue that Dagg The Plagiarist is not a plagiarist by way of their usual muddle-headed delusional nonsense?

From an academic point of view, if we wish to understand why Darwin and Wallace plagiarized Matthew with assistance from the Linnean Society and other scientists, we need to understand why Darwin sought (although on that occasion he failed) to implement an official policy of sly mass plagiarism of many original discoveries by those outside his own circle of wealthy gentleman toff-scientist cronies - (see those facts here) and by association, why Dagg plagiarized me with the help of the Linnean Journal.

Firstly, just as Barbary apes steal the progeny of others to offer to dominant males in the hope of rising up the social hierarchy, so did Darwin and Wallace steal the "progeny" of Matthew. And likewise, so did Dagg The Plagiarist steal mine. Secondly, just like Matthew the radical libertarian Chartism leader, I mock religion, I write about dishonesty in politics, and I mock the "scientific establishment" aristocracy and upper classes (toffs) for their dishonesty. Also like Matthew did in his bombshell book of 1831, I mock current mainstream falsehoods and delusions shared by the scientific community. Unlike Matthew, I also mock the Linnean Society for facilitating science fraud by plagiarism! Oh yes, and I've been mocking the 'Lad' Dagg for the mass of muddle-headed harassment nonsense he has been writing about me in his silly blog sites and elsewhere on social media for some years now. After all, what a silly little 👶 babyish plagiarizing twerp he is.  Thirdly, just as Barbary apes choose to steal the progeny of those lower down the ranks in their tribe, because they think that gives them the best chance of succeeding in their theft, so did Darwin and Wallace target the work of the already censored Scott Matthew, and so did the sniveling coward plagiarist Dagg target my work after other 'Lads' such as Becalloni, Weale, van Wyhe and others, had between them, started doing, amongst other things, one or else more of such things as writing ignorant/deliberate fact denial nonsense in social media about me, to journalists, my employer, close friends and associates, school teachers, Members of The Carse of Gowrie Sustainability Group in Scotland - who received National Lottery Heritage Fund money to build the Patrick Matthew Trail and to finance a conference on Matthew at the James Hutton Institute - Employees of the National Lottery Heritage Fund, employees of the James Hutton Institute, my book's reviewers and its cover designer, Organizers of the Conway Hall Sunday lectures, Organizers of various Skeptics in the Pub groups, and/or otherwise cowardly writing poison pen emails to harass me and my associates in other ways for the independently verifiable facts I dared to uncover and tell the world about Darwin and Wallace. For research purposes you can get the evidence of who did what exactly of all that and far more besides here).

To continue with the revealing analogy on progeny stealing to please more socially prominent apes, Becalloni "collected" a very rare centipede, living and perhaps even endangered biological artifact, from Thailand to impress older and more powerful men at his place of work (here and archived here). Furthermore, Becalloni's plagiarizing and lying science fraudster hero Alfred Wallace similarly "collected" by shooting for money an orangutan mother and then stealing her child for his own sick amusement and literary glorification by the likes of those who knew no better in the 19th century, and those who still know no better today.

These Victorian and latter-day smog apes are an absolute disgrace to science in my opinion. And the true Originator, of macroevolution by natural selection, Patrick Matthew? Whilst Matthew's opinions on colonization of the World by the British are heinous, he did advocate - as a man so often many decades ahead of his time - the European Single Market, the Peace Corps (published here) and respect for all living creatures. And he was first to introduce giant redwoods into the UK. But Darwin's glory thieving, lying, circle of cronies stole that honour from him too (here)! Among many other achievements, the man who Darwin portrayed as "a little known Scottish writer on forest trees" accurately predicted the Tay Bridge Disaster in the teeth of mockery from foolish others supporting powerful lobby interest groups (here).

As said, Darwin and Wallace plagiarized whole swathes of original text, ideas and many highly idiosyncratic explanatory examples from Matthew's book and were closely networked and influenced by those we newly know cited Matthew before Darwin or Wallace penned a word on the topic of natural selection. I originally discovered that Wallace even fraudulently doctored a letter in his autobiography to try to conceal from us the fact that Darwin and his cronies were paying him to assist in plagiarizing Matthew's breakthrough before the crooked Linnean Society in 1858 (get the proof here)!

Although latterly jumping on the RSPCA domestic pet anti-cruelty movement, at least (here), Darwin, (whose famous grandfather - Erasus Darwin - is a twice proven plagiarist) like Wallace had little to zero respect for wild living creatures. Darwin ate an owl once and lived to shoot thousands of pheasants as a young man, and his son boasted of his father's amazing stone throwing rabbit killing skills (all here). The Captain of HMS Beagle wrote of how Darwin wrecked murderous death on many trusting sea birds with his geological hammer (here). Once, Darwin even tortured a puppy. Oh, and one more thing, it's a total supermyth that Darwin discovered evolution by natural selection by observing finches on the Galapagos Islands, he got it all from books as he admitted himself (get the facts on that here).

By keeping the Christian notion of "God" in so many editions of The Origin of Species, his plagiarized version of Matthew's theory, as one thing leads to another, it is even arguable that Darwin possibly caused the holocaust by his plagiarism.

The Sly Smog Apes Darwin and Wallace

Incidentally, contrary to utter ludicrous nonsense written by Darwin fan Richard Dawkins - (who incidentally - to the foot stamping impotent wrath of one idiot cyber-stalking and endlessly harassing nut job juvenile Darwibopper Lad, who wrote to the expert peer reviewed journal publishing the fact to complain bitterly that it published painful facts I have uniquely unearthed on Darwin's and Dawkins's plagiarism, Richard Dawkins did not coin the term selfish gene) - that Matthew never understood his own ideas because he never trumpeted them from the rooftops before Darwin replicated them, not only (seemingly unknown to the conveniently historically ignorant Dawkins) was Matthew and his original breakthrough brute censored many times in print, he had his book banned by public libraries and was platform blocked at a major science conference in the 19th century, the Darwin Lads on Wikipedia were caught out repeatedly fact denying - by deleting links to the original source texts on this censorship - such censorship even happened. They were caught "live" in an hilarious sting operation by me (here).

"Mr Matthew", ejaculated Emma Darwin, "my husband is more
 faithful to your own original child than you are yourself!" At that
precise moment the three knew she'd put her foot in it. You could
have cut the atmosphere with a snark.

The above cartoon is based on the letter Emma Darwin sent to Patrick Matthew where she put her foot in it by writing that "With regard to natural selection, my husband is more faithful to your own original child than you are yourself!" The original letter is in the National Library of Scotland. I have been granted permission by the copyright holder to publish the image of that letter and others Charles Darwin sent to Matthew (click here to see and read them).

As time passes since my bombshell breakthrough of 2014, the number of journalists, scientists and other scholars following the brave grown-up lead of Dr Arlin Stoltzfus in admitting to the truth of the devastating facts will increase exponentially. In 2020 we can see this happening.  I have recorded and fully referenced details of the current known number of scholarly references here and press articles here. 

Conclusion

When enemies of independently verifiable newly unearthed facts about Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarism and serial lying behave like Darwin's low-life 'Lads' it is obvious I must be doing something right. These thick idiots thought I was their prey. But as the facts of their behaviour reveals, only they are the prey of their own vicious stupidity. Anyway, I digress. Do you fancy a good laugh dear rational reader? If so, the idiotically hilarious childish Darwin worship contortionist spectacle on workplace, malicious harasser, Weale's idiotic Darwin worship propaganda site is archived here for all proper adult scholars to cite in their future critical work in this area of dysology studies and science model crisis following bombshell paradigm changes in science.

Archived comments on Weal's Patrick Matthew Project website

1. http://archive.is/WjCSl
2. http://archive.is/jyUbX
3. http://archive.is/4mbTx
4. http://archive.is/Qb8BO
5. http://archive.is/l5q5k
6. http://archive.is/4NoLw
7. http://archive.is/J4Elh

Belief is the Root of all Delusion: Dr Arlin Stoltzfus on Dr Mike Weale's Arguments that Darwin is Innocent of Lying and Plagiarising Glory Theft

Interestingly, those who discover paradigm changing and independently 
verifiable new data are often portrayed by desperately biased scholars
 with vested career and in-group establishment interests in the old but newly
myth-punctured paradigm as cranks. With painful irony, the real cranks are
 those who let their bias interfere with their critical  reasoning.

Dr Arlin Stoltzfus, referring to discussions between Dr Mike Weale and I on Weale's Blogsite The Patrick Matthew Project explains why Weale's loyal 'belief-based' Darwinite bias cannot trump the fact-based uncomfortable - newly discovered - truth in the story of the history of discovery of natural selection.

Stoltzfus, A. Friday, August 05, 2016 (Writing on the Sandwalk blog site).

'Darwin, by repeating the idea that no naturalist read or noticed Matthew's book, repeated a self-serving statement that he knew to be factually incorrect, because Matthew himself had pointed this out. These facts are not in dispute. Sutton describes these facts by saying it is "100% proved" that Darwin "lied".

In the cited web site, the case made by author Mike Weale is entirely based on quibbling about "lied" and "100 % proved", while bending over backward to give His Holiness Charles Darwin the benefit of the doubt. According to Weale, when His Infallible Holiness Charles Darwin says that "nobody read it", we must interpret this as the kind of harmless exaggeration that occurs every day-- of course His Holiness must have known that the book would have been read by *someone*, so obviously he wasn't intending to be taken literally (*). To accuse his holiness of "lying" would be to impute deception, which cannot be proved "100 %" because it requires an inference of motives (according to Weale).

Thus, Weale's case against Sutton rests on the same kind of scholarly double standard that we are now accustomed to seeing: (1) insisting on a literal interpretation of a rhetorically loaded version of Sutton's argument, while Darwin gets off easy precisely because Weale *refuses to hold Darwin to a literal interpretation*, and (2) insisting that Sutton can't rely on inferences or touch on the issue of intentions by invoking "lied", while Weale is free to defend Darwin precisely by appeal to inferences about Darwin's knowledge and motives (sentence above with *). '

Appeal for a Rational Way Forward

Please do something (no matter how small) to support veracity in the war for veracity over claptrap in the story of the discovery of natural selection. Because Darwinites currently dominate the scientific community, but they are behaving like an authoritarian religious deification cult. 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nullius-Verba-Darwins-Greatest-Secret-ebook/dp/B00M5DP46U

Modern advanced societies will be harmed by having an inaccurate history of scientific discovery, disseminated through the propagandising machinations of  palpably biased salaried academics and other powerful establishment in-group members. Only a crank could not see that.

Belief is the Root of all Delusion: Dr Arlin Stoltzfus on Dr Mike Weale's Arguments in favour of Darwin's Innocence: https://t.co/sFRKTIQmBz

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) August 13, 2016

Why is Dr Mike Weale afraid to face the cameras and public on his claims and fact denials?

So far, Dr Mike Weale is refusing to defend his allegations and fact denial in a public debate before video cameras: https://t.co/RsnIO6smoK

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) May 3, 2016

I Challenge Dr Mike Weale to put up or shut up.

Dr Mike Weale wrote on this website The Patrick Matthew project on April 29th a comment addressed to me:

“Mike, respectfully, I do think that the “exquisitely painful irony” here is that you, the coiner of the “supermyth” concept, are the creator and promulgator of an elaborate set of myths and supermyths of your own. You claim to be busting the myth, deliberately set up by Darwin and credulously believed by Darwinists ever since, that no-one read Matthew’s book. But the very existence of the myth you are busting is itself a myth. It’s not just a case of de-bunking the de-bunker of the myth, but de-bunking the very idea that there is a “myth and supermyth” narrative in the first place. It really is Alice-in-Wonderland rabbit-hole territory.”

As a result of his unevidenced claims, I, on the 2nd of May 2016, publicly challenged him to put up or shut up. The gauntlet is now thrown down for a public academic debate.

THIS IS MY REPLY TO DR MIKE WEAL:

‘And there we have it Mike. As always you cannot produce a jot of evidence to support what you write. You have written, once again, nothing but your mere unevidenced and now debunked opinion. That alone should worry you. But I expect it doesn’t. Because it’s a pseudo-scholarly habit of yours.

You can’t argue with facts – because you have absolutely no facts that can refute the New Facts, do you Mike?

And the new facts refute the old mere unevidenced “knowledge beliefs” of the so called “Darwin Industry”, don’t they Mike?

All you are doing is seeking to deny the facts that you don’t like, Mike.

It appears that you wish the newly discovered facts did not exist Mike.

But my dear Mike, you can’t wish them away. You really can’t. It just doesn’t work that way. And you can’t magic them away by writing totally unevidenced claims about me as though you hope that will make your debunked beliefs true. Moreover, the old Darwinist “knowledge claims” are completely debunked by the New Facts of who we now newy know both read Matthew’s book and the bombshell original ideas on natural selection in it.

With respect Mike, you don’t seem to understand that in order to, rationally, refute a myth you need independently verifiable disconfirming facts to deploy against it. That is how I debunked the pervasive “No one read Matthew’s (1831) original ideas before 1860 myth.”

Simply voicing your unevidenced bias as an opinion cannot magically transmute facts that disconfirm that mere opinion into something else. You are, with respect, engaging in embarrassing magical thinking in your – above – comment, Mike. And on this website you go around and around in ever evasive tall tale chasing circles doing the same old thing. But it’s too late Mike – your favourite tale of immaculate deception has already been well and truly bitten. Consumed in fact – by the facts!

With respect, Mike, you seek to claim the independently verifiable newly discovered facts are themselves a myth? How unscientific of you, with respect, Mike. That’s fact denial.

Answer the following questions if you dare Mike and also show me where in the literature it is written that another naturalist, scientist or biologist read Matthew’s ideas before 1860? Where does it say anywhere that Darwin was wrong to write that none had? Where does it say that so many top Darwin scholars before me were wrong to claim that none had. You won’t will you mike? And why won’t you? Because YOU can’t can you Mike?

Now let us turn to the New Facts shall we.

Now look at the newly discovered facts – the facts that I uniquely discovered. It is these new facts that prove you are, with respect, credulously worshipping a fact-denying supermyth Mike.

http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/insanely-jealous-dr-john-van-wyhe-madly.html

Ouch! Painful facts that Dr John van Wyhe misled the Scottish press about. How on Earth are such facts a “conspiracy theory”, as he claims? As if facts that 100 per cent disconfirm the prior historical “understanding” are not of value to history. What desperate nonsense. How is this a supermyth? Don’t, with respect, be so, with respect, silly Mike.

You claim I create a myth by sharing with the general public the newly discovered facts that 100 per cent disconfirm the myths published by the world’s leading Darwinist scholars – such as Charles Darwin (FRS) himself, Sir Gavin de Beer (FRS) and Ernst Mayr (FRS) – amongst so many others. The facts that disprove Darwin’s lying “no naturalist / no one at all / read Matthew’s (1831) original ideas before 1860 myth”. That IS, similarly, the debunked Patrick Matthew Supermyth – the myth upon which rested the now punctured paradigm of Darwin’s and Wallace’s independent discovery. And why is is that paradigm debunked? Because of the New Facts that you, with respect, cannot now refute. Because these New facts newly prove that routes of potential knowledge contamination are now 100 per cent newly proven to have existed. No myth on my part Mike, Why not? Because it’s all 100 per cent true. Isn’t it Mike. No myth at all on my part Mike. just uncomfortably disconfirming facts.

It’s not a bad dream Mike. It’s all true. All fact. All hard facts. All independently verifiable facts. And what do you have, with respect, to refute the New Facts Mike? What exactly have you got, with respect, beyond, with respect, your mere wishful thinking that facts are not facts? With respect, you have a big embarrassing nothing Mike, besides newly debunked unevidenced ideas that were dressed up as facts?

Facts Mike are facts. What I have is new facts Mike. Newly discovered facts. What have you got? All you have is something that has been wrong for 156 years. Now proven wrong. Just because something has been wrong for a very long time does not make it right Mike.

We find also now that the great friend of William Hooker – John Lindley (great friend of John Loudon – no less) did the exact same thing for 13 years to Matthew on Matthew’s priority for introducing giant redwood trees in the UK. Is that a supermyth too Mike – is that fact also a myth according to your, with respect, magical thinking, simply because you don’t like that uncomfortable and incriminating fact either? Funny isn’t it that Darwin, Wallace and Lindley were among the few naturalists at that time who thought species capable of evolving into new species.

Read the facts. The facts are newly discovered. And I discovered them. Deal with the facts Mike. I’m not interested in your factually debunked mere opinion – other than showing you that is all it is.

So, if facts – not debunked mere wishful thinking beliefs – are currency in the history of science, what actual facts do you have to disconfirm my disconfirming facts Mike? Or are you going to, with respect, admit that you are simply and credulously, in a state of denial, desperately worshipping a debunked myth. The fully fact-led debunked myth of Darwin the honest original discoverer?

With kindly, respect, bring facts not unevidenced beliefs to a fact fight Mike. Otherwise you will not stand a chance. On which note, I wish to make you an offer I think you dare not take up.

Would you like to publicly debate this with me Mike. Bring along as many of your Darwinist friends and colleagues and associates and contacts as you like. The more eminent the better. I will stand alone, completely alone, and debate my facts – the New Facts – against your mere opinions – and any facts you think are relevant – anywhere any place any time. A place of your naming Mike. I just insist that we film it and put the film on YouTube and Vimeo afterwards.

Consider that an academic gauntlet thrown down Mike.

This is a public challenge Mike

I dare you to debate this with me in front of your peers and students – or in front of mine! I have nothing to fear from the facts, or your mere opinions. Do you fear them?

Are you man enough to back up your accusations that I have created a supermyth of my own on this topic with substance? I am more than willing to debate against your accusations in public Mike! I would welcome it.

With respect Mike Weale – put up or, with respect, shut up!

So what is it to be then Mike?’

The existence of the uncomfortable New Facts, which have got so painfully under Dr Mike Weale's skin, and under the skin of Dr John van Wyhe, and many others, leading them to effectively to deny their very existence are reaching an ever wider audience (Sutton 2016 and Engber 2016) . 

Very pleased to say that the King of Meta-Skeptics has endorsed my article in no uncertain terms... https://t.co/kGZnwDXqYf

— Daniel Engber (@danengber) April 28, 2016

Weale's Entanglement Analogy: Dr Mike Weale Discovers a Pure Coincidence, Else Further Confirmatory Evidence of Darwin's Plagiarism of Matthew

During an on-going discussion with me on July 20th 2015 Dr Mike Weale wrote in the comments section of The Patrick Matthew Project:

[ Note:  In the following text, written by Mike Weale to Mike Sutton, NTA refers to Matthew's 1831 book "On Naval Timber and Arboriculture"] This is the book that leading scholars agree contains the original complete hypothesis of natural selection, but that Darwin and Wallace claim not to have read before they replicated Matthew's discovery, his great analogy to explain it and many of his examples of its operation in nature.

Plese note: Forsdyke does not reveal the similarity of the picture drawn in text from Darwin  - that is done by Weale. We might call this item of evidence "Weale's Entanglement Analogy". I am not sure it is particular evidence for plagirism in its own right. But if we add it to the far stronger evidence from my systematic and comprehensive plagiarism check - revealed  in Nullius - it is, at least, rather curiously interesting.

Dr Weale writes: 

Mike, were you aware of the following interesting similarity between a famous passage of Darwin’s, and something that Matthew wrote in NTA? I thank Donald Forsdyke for pointing out the Matthew quote (see the end of his last video in his educational video series (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL59A9C65FB0DCED9E).

The Darwin quote, from the last paragraph of “On the Origin of Species”, is:

 “It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us.”

The Matthew quote, from pp.229-30 of NTA, is:

 “Look at the broken mound, with its old picturesque trees and tangled bushes; there is the ancient root where the throstle had its nestlings, which are now at large on the leafy boughs, and are tuning their yet unformed notes to melody. Now every twig has raised its new column of foliage to the sun; and branch, and root, and stone, embellished all over in the richest variety of cryptogamic beauty, swarm of insect life.”

The scene is used differently (to contemplate Nature’s laws by Darwin, to contrast beautiful Nature with boring manicured parks by Matthew), but the similarity of the picture is striking.

Patrick Matthew and Intelligent Design

Dr Mike Weale - Reader in Statistical Genetics - of Kings College London thinks evidence supports his unique conclusion that the full theory of natural selection was first proposed from a premise that it was designed by supernatural intelligence - Here