Wikipedia has a written policy that "Experts are Scum"

@TinkNEvolv Because of @thewikipedian Wikipedia and the clown idiots who run it: Have an "experts are scum" policy: https://t.co/LnjID1kmwU

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) April 10, 2016

Wikipedia Editors Are Systematically Deleting Significant Facts About Charles Darwin and Patrick Matthew

Remember: An objective and curious scholar @WeAreWikipedia should always "Follow the Data" https://t.co/eWYoMeVmAt pic.twitter.com/3W60pMnDei

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) April 8, 2016

For the full details, read my Best Thinking blog post (with its further links): Here

Junior Carsonians share their research findings with Mike Sutton

On Thursday 17th March 2016, as part of my Patrick Matthew lecture tour of the Carse of Gowrie, I was most deeply honoured to be the  the guest of honour of the Junior Carsonians. Children from six primary schools in the Carse of Gowrie gathered at Invergowrie Primary School to share their research findings on their famous Carse of Gowrie science hero Patrick Matthew.

Children from all the primary schools in the Carse of Gowrie were extremely well informed about the work and life of Matthew. We asked many questions of one another and shared some interesting answers.

One of the teachers discovered a number of long-forgotten letters from Matthew to his neighbour Lord Kinnard. The letters are held at Perth Public Library, along with a copy of Matthew's (1831) book, donated by his granddaughter. The children particularly liked two of the newly discovered Matthew letters: one asking that Lord Kinnard supply his own (Kinnard's) tenant with free manure each year and another asking for a school to be built for the children of the poor of the Carse of Gowrie.

Kinnard saw to it that the school was built and that it adopted the enlightened design principles recommended by Matthew for the teaching of sensitive children, Both of these Matthew & Kinnard stories are addressed by the children in their book: "The Life of Patrick Matthew".

At the end of our delightfully informative meeting, the children of Abernyte Primary School presented me with a small token of the suburb work undertaken by all the children present. The images of their interpretation, conveyed in words and pictures - of the life of Patrick Matthew:

Could the New Data be True? Or is it all just a bad dream for Darwinists?

.@evolutionraad Always been possible.The questions should be is it now probable? Weigh the new & peer reviewed facts https://t.co/E8QuuMzsSL

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) April 6, 2016

Show Me The Evidence!

In a "Dog" we should trust: all others must bring data: https://t.co/Ts5EQd4J1m pic.twitter.com/hR05OYmNeI

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) April 6, 2016

Joseph Hooker and Charles Lyell Lied to the Linnean Society: Jim Dempster's Private Correspondence with Ian Hardie

Jim Dempster

The letter below is from Jim Dempster. He writes to Ian Hardie in December 1994. Ian was, at the time, this letter was typed, the solicitor of the Patrick Matthew Trust. The "Trust" was set up by the descendants of Matthew.

In this letter, Dempster writes to inform Hardie of the difficulties of conducting sound research outside of a university environment, and of his discovery that Hooker and Lyell lied to the Linnean Society that Wallace had given his consent to have his paper read alongside Darwin's.

Dempster and Matthew scholars (perhaps even curious Darwinists) will be interested that one of the illustrious John Hunter's descendants was, apparently, interested in Dempster's work on the topic of that great original thinker. Curiouser and curiouser!

Note, in 2005, Dempster was compelled to vanity published his third important book on the history of the discovery of natural selection "The Illustrious Hunter and the Darwins".

Over a decade before this letter was written, in 1983, Dempster published Patrick Matthew and Natural Selection. But soon after the publisher went bankrupt. The Patrick Matthew Trust helped the widely published scientist Dempster to promote and fund in part his second hugely important book on the history of discovery of natural selection (compelled to be vanity published with the Pentland Press): Dempster, W.J. (1996) Natural Selection and Patrick Matthew. Edinburgh. The Pentland Press. (for more details and full references see my blog article on Dempster: here). See also a November 1993 press article on the topic here and another here.

This letter is the first evidence that I can recall seeing where Dempster writes about that  sly lie, which Hooker and Lyell used to deceive the Linnean Society. I nail it myself in Nullius  (Sutton 2014) - but I thought I arrived at it independently of Dempster. Perhaps not - perhaps my brain was "knowledge contaminated" from one of Dempster's three books on the topic of Matthew and discovery of natural selection? I am most interested to find out. Indeed the evidence for subconscious/forgotten  'Dempsterian knowledge contamination' of my brain - one way or the other - will be fascinating in light of my most recent peer reviewed article on the very topic of the phenomenon of the notion of 'knowledge contamination' (Sutton 2016).  Now I must go back with great curiosity and read all three of Dempster's superb books on Matthew with a fine toothcomb for the fourth time! When I find my answer I shall write about it.

Most importantly, in this letter, Dempster informs Hardie that his research reveals that both Darwin and Wallace lifted much from the articles on organic evolution that were written by Edward Blyth. Had only Dempster - and other Darwin and Matthew scholars before him done what all good scientists should do and - "followed the data" from the botanist and polymath John Loudon's 1832 review of Matthew's (1831) book, where he wrote that Matthew apparently had something original to say on "the origin of species", my science hero, Dempster, would have discovered what I was first to discover in 2014 (Sutton 2014).  Namely, that Loudon went on to be Editor of the journal that published two of those important and influential Blyth articles! Potential Matthewian 'knowledge contamination' via Loudon -> Byth -> Darwin & Wallace is thus uniquely now proven!

I see that, as Dempster informed Hardie, Longman and Co of London, and Black of Edinburgh - the original publishing houses of Matthew's (1831) On Naval Timber - were not interested in publishing a book about Matthew, written by a scientist of Dempster's calibre and proven abilities. I wonder why not? Had either "House" published Dempster's work they would have added to their catalogue the brilliantly objective scalpel-like scholarship of one who removed the cognitive cataracts from his own "eyes" to see the facts beyond the Victorian smog of Darwin's deceptions. Consider, for example, what he shows us here in his private red-inked assessment of the lies about Matthew's book that Darwin slyly wove into the Origin of Species from 1861 (3rd edition) onwards. The context and precise significance of the red-ink notes Dempster wrote on his copy of Darwin's "Historical Sketch" is examined, in-depth, here   ):

His textbook on surgery that Dempster mentions to Ian Hardie

Mike Sutton at the James Hutton Institute March 2016

Read the paper presented: Here

Treasure Your Exceptions: So Let's Face the Facts: Charles Darwin was an Exceptional Liar and a Hypocrite of the Highest Order

In their excellent book: 'Treasure Your Exceptions':  Professor Donald Forsdyke and Professor Alan Cock (Cock and Forsdyke 2008, p. 644) note that in 1874 Darwin wrote in The Descent of Man:

' "False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often endure long: but false views, if supported by some evidence, do little harm, for everyone takes salutary pleasure in proving their falseness." This view may itself be false. While false facts may not always be "rapidly corrected" as Keilin supposed, it is false views that show the great propensity to "endure long." Everyone may not take pleasure in proving false a view that has abstract elements and/or is politically correct (e.g. the doctrine of natural slection). Often it is the scientist, not the historian, who is best placed to remedy this. '

Of course, false views are often built on a premise comprising false facts. And when that happens an entire paradigm can be constructed. For example, Darwin (1861), in the Origin, wrote false facts (indeed proven deliberate lies, because he had been prior-informed - with hard evidence - that the opposite was true) regarding the prior-readership of the original ideas on natural selection in Matthew's (1831) book On Naval Timber and Arboriculture. From the subsequent mindless Darwinist parroting of Darwin's lies by many - including  the world's leading Royal Society Darwin Medal winning Darwinists Sir Gavin de Beer (FRS) and Ernst Mayr (FRS) (see Sutton 2016) - Darwin scholars constructed a tri-independent discovery paradigm of dual immaculate conception, by Darwin and Wallace (1858) of the prior-published original ideas of Matthew (1831).

The original discovery of disconfirming facts for this paradigm (Sutton 2014) - that as opposed to none at all - seven naturalists actually cited Matthew's (1831) book and the ideas in it pre-1858, that four of those seven were well known to Darwin, and three played major roles influencing and facilitating the pre-1858 work of Darwin and Wallace on organic evolution, punctures the myth-based old paradigm and replaces it with a new one of highly probable "Matthewian knowledge contamination" of the pre-1858 brains of Darwin and Wallace, of the brains of their influencers and of the brains of their influencer's influencers.

In 2016 - after over 155 years of credulous parroting of Darwin's lies, as though they are truths, of failing to follow the data, and of obvious and of significant fact denial in the field of the history of discovery of natural selection and its influence, it is time for Darwin scholars to face the independently verifiable facts.

The Scotsman Cover's Sutton's Hutton Institute Lecture

Darwin may have stolen evolution theory from Perthshire farmer

Reference Stenson, J. (2016) March 17. Darwin may have stolen evolution theory from Perthshire farmer. The Scotsman http://www.scotsman.com/heritage/people-places/darwin-may-have-stolen-evolution-theory-from-perthshire-farmer-1-4074755

Read The Story Here

Please refer to the comments section in The Scotsman where I fill  in the crucial knowledge gaps in the coverage of this story by The Scotsman. 

 I wrote in the comments section on 2 April 2016:

I was only today made aware of the coverage of this story by the Scotsman.

My presentation at the Hutton Institute was followed by a most stimulating debate. Essentially, what has been newly discovered is that - as opposed to the old Darwin-myth story that none read it - the new technology of the internet has worked rather in the same way a metal detector can find things like the Staffordshire Hoard - that could never have been found with a toothbrush - seven naturalists actually cited Matthew's book and the ideas in it before Darwin replicated those ideas and then excused that poor scholarship conduct by claiming none had read them before he did so. Moreover, four of those naturalists were very well known to Darwin, and three played major roles influencing the work of Darwin and Wallace before they replicated those same ideas.

In fact, Darwin is newly proven to have lied about the readership of Matthew's book because he wrote that no naturalists had read it after Matthew informed him in writing that the opposite was true.

Matthew complained bitterly (in his letters to the press) to his dying day about the treatment he received by Darwin's Darwinists in denying him full credit over Darwin.

Matthew to Darwin and Wallace probable "knowledge contamination" is what is newly proven by the New Data. As yet, there is no hard evidence that Darwin or Wallace actually read Matthew's book before 1860. But lies both told in this story mean it would be irrational to continue to assume good faith regarding anything they wrote about Matthew. 

Rationally, the newly discovered facts disconfirm the old Darwinist paradigm of Darwin's and Wallace's supposed miraculous immaculate conceptions of Matthew's prior-published hypothesis.

My book 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret' contains fully referenced evidence to all of the above facts and a great deal more besides.

Edinburgh Evening News 1993

Reference: Thorpe, N. (1993) Back to Basics: New evidence reveals Scot's part in evolution theory: Origin of the thesis. The Edinburgh Evening News. November 6th. 1993.