Mike Sutton
Dr Mike Sutton is the author of 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret'.
| Recent Posts Categories Archives | Link | Print | Email | Share | RSS |
Richard Dawkins Promotes Desperate Darwinist Excuses in Ludicrous Cover-Up of Darwin's Science Fraud
Nov. 15, 2014 2:37 pm
Categories: Counterknowledge, Dysology
Returning tonight from an enjoyably informative November evening historical tour of the 1831 Reform Riots in Nottingham - excellently conducted by People's Hisreh - I cannot help but feel even more riotously irked than normal by the fact that mainstream scholars of the history of scientific discovery have been hoodwinked by the poor scholarship of a cult of Darwin worshiping biologists called 'Darwinists'.
One major aim of these seemingly shameless hood-winkers appears to be to disseminate self-serving palpable nonsense about the discovery of 'natural selection' in order to protect Charles Darwin's science-saintly reputation from the independently verifiable dis-confirming facts that overwhelmingly support the conclusion that he stole the theory of natural selection from another published source and, when confronted, lied by claiming to have had no prior-knowledge of that unique source.
Weirdly, these biased Darwinists have been accredited by the scientific community as the best informed to objectively judge the probability that another (Matthew 1831 ) - incidentally not sharing the name of their namesake - did not influence their namesake with his widely acknowledged publication of the entire hypothesis of natural selection 28 years before Darwin and Wallace (1858) replicated it and excused their obvious plagiarism by lying when they wrote that no naturalist known to either of them had read it. See Sutton (2014) for the new Big Data fully evidenced story of this, the discovery of world's greatest, science fraud.
In Bill Bryson's edited collection ' Seeing Further', Richard Dawkins (2010 ) - the Darwinist equivalent of the Pope - leads his flock of credulously uncritical pseudo-skeptical Darwin and Wallace worshipers in the rhetorical mantra that Matthew does not deserve to be celebrated as an immortal great thinker and discoverer because the poor sucker never knew the importance of his own clearly written, comprehensive and prominently published prior-discovery. Here, Dawkins merely replicates the exact same self-celebratory guilt neutralization reasoning for plagiarism of Matthew's discovery that was deployed by Alfred Wallace !
Richard Dawkins - a man who self-promotes himself as an objective scholar - pontificates that had Matthew known the importance of his own discovery then he would have 'trumpeted it from the rooftops'.
What Dawkins and his desperately faux-skeptical groupies ludicrously choose to ignore is that 1831 - the year in which Matthew wrote his book - containing the full heretical hypothesis of natural selection was one of massive social unrest. At least 70 people nationwide were killed in the reform riots, followed by decades of the same as the poor took direct violent action to promote social change in order to improve their lot.. Between the 1830's and 1850's religious heretics were effectively deemed inseparable from seditious rabble raisers, because the Christian religion was used as a tool by the social elite to keep the poor, repressed , and often starving populace in its place by informing them that their lot was "God's divine will".
Trumpet from the RooftopsAttribution
Patrick Matthew: Originator of Natural Selection, Solver of the Problem of Species and Proven Influencer of Darwin and Wallace
Darwin and Matthew, and all of Darwin's gentlemen of science associates were well aware of the dangers of questioning the church. But only Matthew ever did so in print. Darwin never rejected a creator - as Matthew did in 1831 (while it is true he used the word "Providence" once, it is far more likely, as his biographer Dempster (1996) pointed out - in his critique of Kentwood Wells' (1973) polemical Darwin-defense article - Matthew most likely used the word in 1831 in the Scottish sense of "thrift", rather than the theological.
Matthew handed 'God' his redundancy notice. For his part, Darwin always wrote in every edition of The Origin of Species that 'God' had intelligently designed natural selection to run its course without his need to create new species and render others extinct. How ironic it is then that the World's most famous atheist, Richard Dawkins, should so hoodwink his credulous followers against a truer and far braver atheist than Darwin. Matthew was a privileged Scottish laird, but - unlike the wealthy and landed Darwin - he put self-interest aside to help the lot of his fellow man.
In 19th century Britain, hungry rioters were shot, cut down by troops, and hanged. Seditious authors and the outspoken were frequently imprisoned in that age of moral panic, which was flamed by the memory of what happened to the social elite during the 18th century French Revolution .
Matthew, who in 1839 became a Scottish representative of the radical libertarian Chartist social reform movement filled his 1831 book - On Naval Timber and Arboriculture - with seditious and socio-biological explanations for why the repressive class structure of 19th century society was analogous to the way artificial selection weakened species to serve the particular desires of mankind - as opposed to the harshness of selection by nature.
Seven years after Matthew's book was first published, Chartist uprisings began and those in Darwin's circle took action to maintain repression of the poor protesters. The Botanist John Lindley- a great friend of Darwin's friend's father William Hooker and John Loudon (who had in 1832 reviewed Matthew's book and said it had something original to say on the origin of species, no less) - drilled an armed militia of gardeners , as did Darwin's associate Owen. Britain came to the very brink of violent revolution.
Matthew retired from the Chartists in 1839 - wanting no part in any call for violent confrontation with the state. His second book 'Emigration Fields' (1839) offered emigration as the 'humane' solution - for the British if not the natives of the lands they colonized - to the problems fueled by the industrial revolution: the influx of people into crowded cities; famines and general food shortages - all so predicted by Malthus, whose arguments are well documented by their own letters to have significantly impressed both Darwin and Wallace. So much so, as an alternative to his self-proposed ludicrous malarial fever cognitive-enhancement 'natural selection' independent discovery of Matthew's prior-published hypothesis Eureka moment, Wallace wrote to Darwin a letter in which he claimed Malthus was his greatest influence. Only then did Darwin concur, by way of reply, that "yes" Malthus was an influence on him too. (see Sutton 2014 ). Well, at least they finally got their stories straight in their private correspondence!
Matthew's (1831) great heretical point - most weirdly missed by the professional Darwinist and atheist Dawkins - was that a law of nature, not of any god, operating over unimaginable lengths of time, was the reason why all living matter - in nature - exists where it does and is the way it is.
Mattthew's next sin was to weave his heresy into sedition when he explained that the upper classes were operating against the best interests of the human species by keeping superior human beings down by force of artificial culture. In other words, it was not "Gods will" that things were so miserable for the poor. Rather, it was simply the selfish and harmful will of the rich to keep them down as cheap labor, cannon fodder, and for other means of shameful exploitation.
Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret reveals the full extent of the riots that swept Britain in 1831 - the very year in which Matthew's incendiary book was written and 28 years before Darwin (1859) published The Origin of Species. Other 19th century civil disturbances are examined alongside the significance of Nat Turner's 1831 murderous slave rebellion in the USA - and its violent murderous repression.
Dr Dawkins's self-serving Darwinist rhetoric, let's call it 'Dawkins' Demand - that Matthew should have trumpeted his heresy and sedition from the rooftops at such a riotous time, when the power elite feared Britain would tip into revolution - as had happened in France - is one of the most ludicrously biased notions ever penned by one and gratefully swallowed by numerous otherwise objective and skeptically intelligent scholars. But most importantly of all it is against the rules of priority that are part of the scientific conventions and norms of the Royal Society of which Dawkins is a member. Is Dawkins honestly ignorant of the Argo Effect? Good grief!
In Nottingham, Charles Darwin's famous grandfather, Erasmus Darwin. once stood on a box and felt ethically advised to inform the dreadfully cramped populace of Nottingham to open their windows to let in fresh air . But the following century, in 1831, a far worse cramped populace, inflamed by repression, poverty and the failure of government to offer hope for improvement, burnt the castle to the ground.
Charles Darwin's excuses examined
Charles Darwin, the replicator of Matthew's prior published hypothesis, was compelled to have published a letter in the Gardener’s Chronicle, because Darwin – having been called out in an earlier issue to admit the theory was Matthew’s (see Sutton 2014) - fully admitted that Matthew had fully prior-published the complete theory of natural selection, but Darwin claimed to have had no prior knowledge of it .
Darwin, like Wallace, claimed to have alighted upon the precise hypothesis of natural selection independently of anyone else. Darwin sought to excuse himself for replicating a prior-published hypothesis without citation and calling it "my theory" with the falsehood that no naturist known to him had read Matthew's unique and previously original ideas, when in fact it is newly discovered with Big Data analysis (Sutton 2014) that a total of three naturalists known to Darwin and Wallace - Loudon, Chambers and Selby - had cited Matthew's 1831 book in the literature and afterwards went on to play key roles at the very epicenter of widely acknowledged influence and facilitation of both Darwin's and Wallace's pre-1858, published and unpublished, written ideas on natural selection.
Perhaps biased Darwinists will now go on to stubbornly claim that this new BigData facilitated discovery is no more than new evidence of a mere triple coincidence, albeit one that is not only matchless in the history of scientific discovery but - in some soon to be cooked-up new excuse - an explanation against more likely than not knowledge contamination. If so, then, dear reader, it is you who should ask yourself which explanation, in this Mere Tri-Coincidence v Likely Knowledge Contamination debate, appears to YOU to be implausible beyond rational belief?
Getting back to the details of the story of Darwin's and Matthew's published correspondence in the Gardener's Chronicle: In his rational and independently verifiable evidence-based reply to Darwin's, proven erroneous and merely rhetorical letter of apology and admission, Matthew (Gardeners Chrinicle,1860, p. 433 ) explained that the naturalist Loudon had reviewed his book in 1832 and commented upon its originality on the topic of what Loudon actually called the "origin of species" no less! Matthew went on in his published letter of 1860 to more precisely explain why notions of heresy prevented him and other naturalists from promoting his prior- discovery in the first half of the 19th century (we can only assume that Richard Dawkins is ignorant of these key facts) :
‘I notice in your Number April 21st Mr. Darwin's letter honourably acknowledging my prior claim relative to the origin of species. I have not the least doubt that in publishing his late work he believed he was the first discoverer of this law of Nature. He is however wrong in thinking that no naturalist was aware of the previous discovery. I had occasion some 15 years ago to be conversing with a naturalist, a professor of a celebrated university, and he told me he had been reading my work “Naval Timber,” but that he could not bring such views before his class or uphold them publicly from fear of the cutty-stool, a sort of pillory punishment…’
In that same letter, Matthew then went on to explain that the age was not ready for his heretical ideas and he could not reasonably be expected to trumpet them anywhere beyond the pages he had had written and then prominently published with the major publishers Blacks of Edinburgh and Longman and Co of London:
‘It was not least in part this spirit of resistance to scientific doctrine that caused my work to be voted unfit for the fair city [Perth in Scotland] itself.”
Despite the patent fact that Matthew informed Darwin in the press that other influential scholars had read and commented upon his original ideas, in 1861, in the third edition ofThe Origin of Species, and in every edition thereafter, Darwin wrote a lie (one of six he told to achieve primacy over Matthew for Matthew's prior discovery - see Sutton 2014 for an examination and full discussion of this and the other five) when he wrote (Darwin 1861):
'Unfortunately the view was given by Mr Matthew very briefly in scattered pages in an Appendix to a work on a different subject, so that it remained unnoticed until Mr Matthew himself drew attention to it in the Gardener’s Chronicle…’
In that one sentence Darwin also wrote a second lie. Because he knew full well that Matthew's unique hypothesis was not brief and was not merely contained in the appendix of his 1831 book. We know this, because Matthew included large swathes of text on what he (Matthew 1831) uniquely named 'the natural process of selection' - which Darwin (1860) uniquely four-word-shuffled into 'the process of natural selection' -from both the main body of his 1831 book and from its appendix in his first letter of 1860 in the Gardeners' Chronicle. And We know that Darwin was fully aware of that precise fact because he wrote to his botanical mentor and best friend, Joseph Hooker to say as much!
So much then for the myth of honest St Darwin - the genius independent discoverer of the theory of natural selection!
Trumpet from the rooftopsPublic Domain
According to Richard Dawkins, Patrick Matthew should not be celebrated as an immortal great thinker, despite the fact that he first discovered the full theory of natural selection in 1831. Dawkins insists Matthew needed to trumpet his heretical discovery, which he wove into seditious and radical Chartist politics from the rooftops in age of great civil unrest, violence and lethal riots!
Perhaps next, Richard Dawkins's arguments will once again involve him cherry picking which conveniently confirming facts to rely upon to support his rhetoric, and which inconveniently disconfirming facts to totally ignore in order to "evolve" to a new pseudo-scholarly and weirdly stubborn insistence that had he known the great importance of the discovery he so prominently published, with major publishers, that Patrick Matthew would have most surely stood upon the flaming rooftop of Nottingham Castle in order to burn himself for heresy whilst trumpeting his great discovery. Yet, when it comes to Saint Darwin of the Immaculate Conception of a Prior-Published Hypothesis, Darwin's biased apologists explain that he quite rightly and reasonably was rationally afraid to publish the hypothesis of natural selection for 25 years because he feared being prosecuted for blasphemy and blackballed by his powerfully wealthy friends as an associated seditious Chartist (Desmond and Moore 1991).
The pseudo-scholarly, faux-skeptical, shame of it!
Trumpet form the rooftops - so long as they are not ablaze!Public Domain
Nullius in Verba: 17th century Motto of the Royal Society - from the wider translation of Horace from where it was taken actually means "on the word alone of no guru" - as opposed to the obvious translation "on the word alone of no one"
My advice to all those by now hopping-mad with bias St. Darwin worshippers is neatly summed up by this excellent poster.
To help poor Darwinists see past their daft-as-a-brush cherry picking and embarassing mere rhetorical pseudo-scholarship, I would like to point them to the one book in the world that they really need to read by way of a summation of the new, independently verifiable, hard evidence presented within it: here .
You can follow me on Twitter here
| AllAuthor's FavoritesThinker Recommended |
Author's Favorite
Howard L. Minnick
November 30, 2014 at 7:08 pm
It's all a matter of perspective
Mike,
Bravo... well done my good friend.
While taking in what I just read I had a picture in my mind of a transcending time scene in which Richard Dawkins was strolling along the Carse of Goury not noticing that he was passing by a beautiful new planting... still ongoing... of Coastal Redwoods brought from America by Patrick's son John and being planted by P.M. himself in 1857. Instead of watching a true forester in the labors of his love... Dawkins was intently watching a donkey feeding on what little scrub there was in an overused patch of pasture. Curious as to what was so interesting P. M. strolled up to Dawkins and greeted him kindly...only to have the later scowl at him and begin a rant about how stupid a beast of burden like a donkey was and that Mother Mary herself...if the story were true... would have never chosen a donkey to ride to go pay her taxes with while carrying her son. He then continued his rant about how useless the animal was how it should be made to work for it's keep. About that time the donkey walked up to Dawkins and pissed on the back of his legs and then proceeded to crap all over his shoes. What proceeded from Dawkins mouth at that time may have just as well been shouted from the roof tops. It was probably the best and most believable speech he would ever give in his entire life. But the best part was yet to come. With a smile on his face from ear to ear Ole P.M. took his shovel and did what any good gardener would do... he shoveled up the donkeys contribution and fertilized his marvelous new trees.
| Reply |
Recommended by 0 Thinkers
|
Dear Howard
Well, I'm afraid I have to agree with your sentiments, although your story is considerately kinder than my cruder imagination allows. Because in my cruder critical version, based upon his poor scholarship, it is poor Dr Dawkins, not the donkey, who supplies the rhetorical fertilizer. Although I suspect the donkey in your sophisticated humanist Xmas story is a subtle metaphor with a very most circumstance suitably unsubtle payload.
Since the Darwinist congregation of the pseudo-scholarly Church of St Darwin and St Wallace of the Immaculate Conception of a Prior-Published Theory stubbornly refuse to address the wealth of newly discovered dis-confirming evidence for their credulous beliefs then their Bishop Dr Dawkins - who promotes himself as an exceptionally un-biased scientist - is fair game for such new- evidence-led mockery.
From what I have read of your Great, Great, Great Grandfather - he would have taken Dawkins to the burns that held the best trout and coached him in the fine art of fly-fishing. Although I suspect Darwin (I'm not sure about Dawkins) would have preferred to use worms.
Matthew certainly offered Darwin a trip up to the Carse of Gowrie to enjoy his hospitality that Darwin might recuperate in the clean air from his chronic vomiting illness. As on every occasion when Matthew offered him the hand of friendship, the emotionally retarded Darwin ignored it like a rude teenager and had his wife answer it in the negative - as a child would deploy its mother.
Darwin not only had less originality than a trailer park, he is a proven serial liar - nicknamed by his best friend Joseph Hooker 'The Great Wriggler', Darwin appears, from the hard and independently verifiable evidence, to have had all the moral fibre of the worms for which he felt such great affinity that he freely used his nickname with pride!.
I wonder if Dr Richard Dawkins has any nickname other than "Bishop Dawkins"?
| Reply |
Recommended by 0 Thinkers
|
Howard Minnick
December 5, 2014 at 12:41 pm
The one problem with your version of Dawkins supplying the fertilizer is that his would be very lacking in substance... where as the donkey's wouldn't.
HLM
| Reply |
Recommended by 0 Thinkers
|
I'm a great fan of Harry H. Frankfurt's aptly named book: On Bull***t:, which is available here as a free essay. Frankfurt explains the difference between "bull" and lies. Essentially, the liar is concerned with the truth - its just that he wants to convince you that something else is veracious. The bulls****er has no concern for the truth - his aim is merely to sound correct and plausible, regardless of the veracity of what he says.
Clearly, Richard Dawkins needs to read this blog on his bulls***t and then read Frankfurt and reflect. If, after doing so, he continues with his daft-as-a-brush Darwin worshiping rhetoric that Matthew should have trumpeted his heretical discovery form the rooftops then Bishop Dawkins - of the Church of St Darwin and St Wallace of the Immaculate Conception of a prior Published Theory - can be labelled a liar.
| Reply |
Recommended by 0 Thinkers
|
I'm a great fan of Harry H. Frankfurt's aptly named book: On Bull***t:, which is available here as a free essay. Frankfurt explains the difference between "bull" and lies. Essentially, the liar is concerned with the truth - its just that he wants to convince you that something else is veracious. The bulls****er has no concern for the truth - his aim is merely to sound correct and plausible, regardless of the veracity of what he says.
Clearly, Richard Dawkins needs to read this blog on his bulls***t and then read Frankfurt and reflect. If, after doing so, he continues with his daft-as-a-brush Darwin worshiping rhetoric that Matthew should have trumpeted his heretical discovery form the rooftops then Bishop Dawkins - of the Church of St Darwin and St Wallace of the Immaculate Conception of a prior Published Theory - can be labelled a liar.
| Reply |
Recommended by 0 Thinkers
|
Howard Minnick
December 5, 2014 at 12:49 pm
Yes Darwin was very crafty in his excuses ...usually feigning illness in order to curtail an actual meeting with P.M. And I do have a copy of one of the letters he had his wife write on his behalf to once again perpetuate the sham.
HLM
| Reply |
Recommended by 0 Thinkers
|
It does appear that Darwin used his illness to avoid meeting Matthew. Of course, to be even handed (unlike Darwin worshipers) it is true that Darwin did have a chronic vomiting illness (possibly Crohn's Disease ) - but he did rudely hide behind his wife's apron strings in corresponding with Matthew, which strongly suggests he had a guilty mind.
| Reply |
Recommended by 0 Thinkers
|
Howard Minnick
December 9, 2014 at 10:17 am
One thing I forgot to mention to you was before Jim Passed away he was in contact with a professor from a University in New Zealand who was investigating the possibility that there may have been as many as 3 of Matthew's books aboard the Beagle with the strongest possibility of the Ships Doctor / Naturalist being the most likely and that it probably stayed aboard with the rest of his personal library despite the poor gentleman taking sick and being left behind at Monte Video. Darwin's ensuing closeness to the Captain as the voyage and exploration progressed certainly could have led to access without having to stretch the imagination. Jim's passing wasn't long after that so I don't know where that ended up. He was going to get to the bottom of it and get back to me. Maybe his Children have come across that information.
| Reply |
Recommended by 0 Thinkers
|
Howard
Many thanks - that is an interesting insight into Jim Dempster's on-going concern to bring greater veracity to the story of Matthew and Darwin. Prof Milton Wainwright thinks it an idea worth pursuing - see page 17 of this article . :
' It is noteworthy that one of the main purposes of Captain Fitzroy’s command of the Beagle voyage was to study the arboriculture of the countries visited with a view to discovering where in the world British warships and merchant vessels might take on board wood for repairs (Cook, 1839). It is possible therefore that Captain Fitzroy may have taken a copy of Matthew’s Naval Timber and Arboriculture with him on the Beagle; if this was the case then Darwin would have had ample time to learn of Matthew’s views on natural selection.'
If any of Jim Dempster's children do happen to read this blog then perhaps they could share any information - or knowledge of their Father's lack of it on this precise question.
| Reply |
Recommended by 0 Thinkers
|
Howard Minnick
January 14, 2015 at 2:18 pm
I'll have to delve into Wainwrights article a little more later...but at least he brings out the possibility of another possible reason for ONTA to be aboard and remarkably in the abstraction that it could have been Fitzroy himself... very ironical in light of the ruse made by many that Fitzroy may have taken his own life out of regret that he was responsible for being party to what he later considered Darwin's Satanical evil upon the Christian world.
I'll have to go back through a couple of thousand emails to possibly find an address but one of Jim's children did email to thank me for a letter and condolence card I sent shortly after his passing. I'm not sure if it was her own or that of Jims e-address which I still have. If it was his I'll see if it is still active.
HLM
| Reply |
Recommended by 0 Thinkers
|
Dear Howard
Many thanks.
Firstly from herein I'm going to adopt your longer acronym ONTA (OnNaval Timber and Aboriculture) - rather than my earlier NTA. Yours can be pronounced - it's better therefore.
You might be onto something with that lead. Hopefully you can uniquely find further New Data. It's most certainly a trail worth following up.
I think we should be cautious in attributing Fitzroy's suicide to Darwin. He was a notoriously mercurial and brooding man. He completely screwed-up his post as Governor of New Zealand - and his fortune was lost. When he died, Darwin and others had to lobby for his widow to receive a state pension so that she did not die in absolute poverty.
