On Corruption in the Darwin Industry and Royal Society

With regard to Darwin and Wallace's replication of Patrick Matthew's prior published theory of natural selection.

Ignoring completely the accepted Arago Ruling on first and foremost priority for a discovery going to whoever had their original discovery published first, the Royal Society awarded the Darwin medal, and its most prestigious Copley medal, to Wallace. Why?  For replicating Matthew's (1831) prior-published theory in 1858 and for claiming it as his own. If that was not a corrupt act by the Royal Society then what is?

No one is ever going to win the Royal Society's Copley Medal now - never mind one of its Darwin Medals - for originally proving Matthew's book, containing the full theory of natural selection, was read and cited by Darwin's and Wallace's friends, influencers and editors and their influencer's influencers before Darwin and Wallace replicated Matthew's original conception and claimed to have done so independently of it. Just Google "On Knowledge Contamination" (put it in those speech quotes - its a simple Big Data trick) to find the peer reviewed truth of what has been discovered on this topic.

How can we ask the scientific community to stand up to Trump's anti-vaccination and anti-global warming claptrap when its most esteemed institution is corrupt?

In 1860, 157 years ago, Matthew wrote two letters - both published in the Gardener's Chronicle of that year -  claiming his priority.

Darwin wrote to admit Matthew got the entire thing first - 27 years in published print (in 1831) before he and Wallace replicated the theory in their papers presented before the Linnean Society n 1858.  Yet Darwin continued to call it "my theory" and lied by claiming no naturalist/no one at all had read Matthew's original ideas. Darwin wrote those falsehoods even though Matthew had prior- informed him of two naturists who did read his ideas pre-1858.

We know knewly know (Google 'Nullius in verba Darwin's greatest secret' to get the facts) that many of Darwin's and Wallace's  friends, associates and influencers cited Matthew's book and mentioned his orignal ideas pre-1858 in published print. Selby - the editor of Wallace's 1855 Sarawak paper cited Matthew's 1831 book in 1842. Chambers' - Wallace's greatest influencer and Darwin's associate and Correspondent pre-1858 (he authored the Vestiges of Creation in 1844) cited Matthew's book in 1832. there are many more I could mention.

Nevertheless - even despite what has been newly discovered about Matthew's prior-influence-  the Arago Ruling was ignored by The Royal Society.

Before we can take on the likes of  Donald Trump's tweets that vaccinations cause autism and global warming is a Chinese conspiracy (here), our esteemed institutions of science must first put themselves in order. We need an inquiry into the corruption that is the so-called Darwin Industry.

Naughty Biologist > No Royal Society Darwin Medal!

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

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

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

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

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

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

And:

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

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

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

The Darwin Medal

following truths about the history of discovery of natural selection:

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) January 20, 2016