A Good Explanation in Science

Good scientific explanations have these two main characteristics. Macro-Evolution by natural selection has both. pic.twitter.com/br8OPilU71

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) May 15, 2016

Darwin Scholar Donkeys Stop Braying Your Newly Debunked Claptrap and Get the "New Data" Facts

Mythbusting is rather like playing the card game "Donkey".

You take a main claim and then match every single one of the supporting "evidences" and "arguments" for it with relevant 100 per cent proven and independently verifiable facts. Sometimes the facts support the "evidences" and "arguments", sometimes they perfectly refute them.

When you are done, if the facts refute the main claim , then all that is left is a braying donkey insisting that the claim is still valid. Today, the facts reveal that Darwin scholars are nought but braying donkeys.

The "New Data" facts, which the powerful "Dawin Deification Lobby" are seeking to suppress by engaging in classic "fact denial tactics" to mislead the public, have made it into a peer reviewed science journal. Read the latest peer reviewed science paper that proves Darwin lied, plagiarised and was most likely highly influenced by Patrick Matthew.  Here

For your courage @RichardDawkins & honesty retweeting link to criticism of your scholarship: https://t.co/pkRXFf97kk pic.twitter.com/12Ns9zNmnf

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) February 17, 2015

Sales of Richard Dawkins's e-book "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret' Top Record 7 Million

Please Note: This blog may or may not be a parody; depending on what planet you are on.

'One of the best ways to ensure the success of your syndicated content and ebooks is to quickly raise your visibility. The dirty little secret of modern publishing is that books don't sell, authors sell. This is especially true in the digital world where the chaos of millions of titles and commingling of self-published and traditional books in online stores has readers more than ever selecting titles based on finding a writer they like.'

Thinker Media

Please click the image below to more plainly see the theme of this blog post

WARNING!

Buying "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret"    .

And choosing to CLICK THIS LINK or not clicking it,

MIGHT SPLIT THE UNIVERSE FOREVER!

Oh Dear...now you've done it:

Don't be a silly braying debunked donkey. Get the peer reviewed science journal"New Data" facts: HERE   

For your courage @RichardDawkins & honesty retweeting link to criticism of your scholarship: https://t.co/pkRXFf97kk pic.twitter.com/12Ns9zNmnf

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) February 17, 2015

Live Experiment with Corrupt Wikipedia Agenda Editor Bias

This is me. I stand firm and
 challenge the corrupt
Darwin Deification Industry
with 100 per cent proven facts

Here on the Patrick Matthew Blog, I have blogged several times on how corrupt Wikipedia is facilitating the deletion of significant facts in order to pursue a propaganda-driven Darwin deification agenda at the expense of the independently verifiable facts.

To date, these Wikipedia-Agenda-Editor-Clowns immediately delete any fully referenced - even scientific journal peer reviewed (Sutton 2014    and Sutton 2016   ) - mention of the 100 per cent proven, and independently verifiable fact that Charles Darwin lied about the prior-readership of the original ideas in Matthew's (1831) book, containing the full hypothesis of macro evolution by natural selection.

Academic corruption in an area such as the history of science is likely to be subtle. Were it any other way, perpetrators who deliberately hide significant facts from the public and their peers and students, would not be able to get away with it for very long. Subtlety is not evidence of any kind of conspiracy, it is simply the only effective way that so many criminal offences are committed by those who wish to avoid detection. And just as so many legitimate members of society facilitate crimes such as theft by selling highly specialist tools such as crow-bars, bolt cutters lock picks and slide hammers to the general public, so to do many of those involved in what we might name "academic agenda project fraud" work anonymously from the inside, slyly astroturfing   , or else simply assisting salaried academics to hide facts from the public by brute censorship in publications where they have power to delete facts that undermine any extremely carefully crafted and orchestrated agenda-view. Such subtle academic fraud, is today, and has for some time been happening, on the Patrick Matthew page on the Wikipedia encyclopaedia. Let me explain and reveal the facts:

This morning, using a relative's laptop PC - revealing it's IP address to Wikipedia and the public - I personally corrected the misleading information on Wikipedia's Patrick Matthew page   , which gave the typical Darwin deification inaccurate impression that Matthew's heretical ideas on natural selection were not noticed pre-1860. The new - 100 per cent proven, independently verifiable facts, that I added this morning, set the record straight, and are highlighted in this blog post in bold and italics:

Reviews[edit   ]

The United Service Journal and Naval and Military Magazine published an extended review in the 1831 Part II and 1831 Part III numbers of the magazine; it praised Matthew's book in around 13,000 words, highlighting that "The British Navy has such urgent claims on the vigilance of every person as the bulwark of his independence and happiness, that any effort for supporting and improving its strength, lustre, and dignity, must meet with unqualified attention." The review did not mention the appendix to the book.[11]   . However, it did, in Part II, on page 457 stridently criticise Matthew's then heretical conception of macroevolution by natural selection, which in fact runs throughout his entire book intertwined with his then seditious chartist politics: "But we disclaim participation in his ruminations on the law of Nature, or on the outrages committed upon reason and justice by our burthens of hereditary nobility, entailed property, and insane enactments."

Let us now wait, observe, and see if the Wikipedia Darwin deification agenda editors allow this disconfirming fact to survive on their so-called publicly editable "encyclopedia".

I predict that this fact will be deleted as part of the 156 year old Darwin Industry's corrupt propaganda campaign to deny Patrick Matthew's right to be considered an immortal great thinker and influencer in science. If it is it will not be the first time they have deleted this very same fact!

The deeply entrenched Darwinist myth, started as a deliberate proven lie by Darwin in 1860, that no naturalist read Matthew's ideas before 1858 was first blown to smithereens in my Thinker Media book "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret" (Sutton 2014). Moreover, this 100 per cent proven fact, proof of Darwin's lies, along with the new 100 per cent proof of the newly discovered existence of many routes of Matthewian knowledge contamination of the brains of both Darwin and Wallace, passed scientific peer review in March 2016. See: 'On Knowledge Contamination: New Data Challenges Claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Independent Conceptions of Matthew’s Prior-Published Hypothesis'   

Wikipedia and the personal pocket lining lying Darwin Deification Industry will be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century by the disconfirming facts for their published pseudo scholarly fallacies, myths, lies and corrupt propagandising.

Experiment result 1

Postscript 10th May 2016 15.38

Within 90 minutes of the correct information being added to the Patrick Matthew page, about what is 100 per cent proven to have been written about Matthew's book in a published book review of 1831, we see The Wikipedia official editor Dave Souza - who is systematically deleting facts about Darwin and Matthew on this page - has deleted the fact just as predicted. And he did so inside 90 minutes of it being put onto the page.

Even though the source of this fact is cited to the very same source already referenced, Wikipedia editor Dave Souza brazenly, fallaciously claims that it is both un-sourced, contrary to the published source, and "dubious": CLICK HERE to see his edit of 8.58.

• (cur | prev   )   08:58, 10 May 2016   ‎ Dave souza    (talk    | contribs   )‎ . . (41,646 bytes) (-449)‎ . . (Undid revision 719532504 by 2A02:C7D:9E34:8100:6194:58D7:E3DC:219    (talk   ) unsourced, contrary to published source and dubious) (undo   )
• (cur    | prev   )   07:33, 10    
Experimental Edit by Mike Sutton
• May 2016   ‎ 2a02:c7d:9e34:8100:6194:58d7:e3dc:219    (talk   )‎ . . (42,095 bytes) (+449)‎ . . (Added fact from the literature that the United Services journal actually DID mention Matthew's heretical conception) (undo   )

Proof Dave Souza is misleading the public and systematically deleting facts on Wikipedia in order to hide the fact Matthew's ideas on natural selection were read and understood by many others pre 1858.

Here is the proof from page 457 of the United Services Journal review of Matthew's (1831) book :CLICK HERE    to access the actual book and the very text on the page he claims does not exist:

Attribution

Page 457 of the United Services Magazine 1831, book review of Matthew's On Naval Timber and Arboriculture

Wikipedia Editor Souza has done this same thing before (Click to see the facts and discussion of his past behaviour) regarding fully cited sources to Darwin's proven lies on the prior readership of Matthew's book. He claims the cited sources don't exist and when met with protest that he is lying he then is able to actually ban's the complainer from editing anything ever again on Wikipedia! How corrupt is that? 

Is there one or many people hiding behind this Wikipedia editor name Dave Souza?

Here is an image of the entire page containing the text Souza wishes to hide from the general public as part of a systematic Darwin Industry uncomfortable fact deletion campaign Page 457 of the United Services Journal (1831) book review of Matthew's "On Naval Timber"   

.

Corrupt #Wikipedia #Cult is once again begging the public to help it put misinformation online.

Proof they are maliciously publishing misinformation to mislead the public: https://t.co/1rvz2T287X pic.twitter.com/FfVmTIv7ET

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) August 25, 2021

.

"The Blind Eye is the Backward Eye": The Social Danger of Darwin Scholar Fact Denial Punterizing Propaganda Techniques

I think that allowing any kind of fallacy and myth to be accepted as veracious might just create an enabling environment in which credulous belief in far more serious myths and fallacies might flourish and lead, ultimately, to significant social harms, with murderous hate crimes and genocide being at the far end of a "states of denial spectrum" . 

The dreadful story of August Landmesser - the man who refused
 to salute Hitler - is an example of the blindsight paradox

As founding Director for the Nottingham Centre for the Study and Reduction of Bias, Prejudice and Hate Crime, at Nottingham Trent University, I see this as a particularly important topic worthy of further scholarly research.

In the Public Interest

In the public interest, I have been compelled to write a professionally reviewed essay in response to online obscene and misogynistic abuse, other abuse, and claims, which have been submitted to the Scottish press, about my expert and independently peer-reviewed scholarly science journal publication of my original research findings. You can read it here (Sutton 2016).

To avoid mockery and humiliation in a fact fight fuelled scholarly debate, one needs to bring something more than mere unevidenced opinions. 

The main aim of this blog post is to encourage readers to not let pseudo scholars punterize the public with their unevidenced mere agenda-driven fact denial opinions. I wish to encourage others to do what I do, which is to insist that fact deniers and concealers provide independently verifiable facts of their own if they wish to challenge the significance, or very existence, of independently verifiable and 100 per cent proven facts, which they find uncomfortable. 

In his excellent book "State of Denial" the late Stan Cohen (2001, p. 138) wrote: 

'Collective memory is pressed into shape by being repressed.

'Uncomfortable knowledge, though, can be forgotten without direct state manipulation. Whole societies have an astonishing ability to deny the past - not really forgetting, but maintaining a public culture that seems to have forgotten.The blind eye is the backward eye. When circumstances change -  renewed pressure from victims, the chance opening of an archive - then newspaper editorials (without irony) remind us that 'this is what we always knew'.

The "New Data" fact that seven naturalists - as opposed to the old Darwinist story of "none" - read patrick Matthew's book, containing what leading darwin scholars admit is the full prior published hypothesis of natural selection, before Darwin and Wallace (1858), Darwin (1859) replicated the hypothesis without citing Matthew, was first published in my book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret (Sutton 2014). Moreover, I originally discovered that Darwin knew four of the seven naturalists who cited Matthew's book pre-1858 and that three of them played major roles at the epicentre of influence and facilitation of the work of Darwin and Wallace and that of their influencer's influencers (see Sutton 2016).

Every Darwin scholar defence, raised so far against the "New Data" facts has been completely rebutted with reference to independently verifiable facts: Here.

Please note, contrary to the sly and misleading fallacies written about me by Darwin scholars, I have, in fact, never once claimed it is 100 per cent proven that Darwin and Wallace read Matthew's book, as several of the above scholars have claimed or implied. Instead, I have very plainly and deliberately written that, when all the evidence is weighed together, that I personally believe, subjectively, that it is more likely than not proven beyond

all reasonable doubt that they did. And I have very pointedly and clearly insisted that others must read and weigh all the "New Data" facts together to reach their own subjective opinion on the matter (see Sutton 2014). 

What is 100 per cent proven is that Darwin's friends and influencers, and his and Wallace's influencers and their infuencer's influencers read Matthew's (1831) book (because they cited it and the ideas in it), that Darwin read five books that cited Matthew's (1831) book, knowledge contamination routes from Matthew to Darwin and Wallace are now discovered, Darwin lied about the prior readership of Matthew's book, and he told several more lies besides in order to steal Matthew's glory by way of plagiarising science fraud after 1860, and that Wallace lied in his autobiography by deleting incriminating text in his transcription of a letter he sent his Mother. See Sutton 2014  (and 2016) or all these 100 per cent proven facts and their contextual details. 

Darwinists have no dis-confirming facts to bring to a fact fight to argue against the newly discovered 100 per cent  proof of potential Matthewian knowledge contamination routes of the pre-1858 brains of Darwin and Wallace

For their part, Darwin apologists have no 100 per cent verifiable proof that Darwin or Wallace conceived the

Sutton (2014)
The Bombshell Book that
Re-Wrote the History of
Discovery of Natural Selection

theory of macro evolution by natural selection independently of Matthew's (1831) orignal conception. The best evidence they have is Darwin's private notebooks and essays. But these do not help them a jot, because several of Darwin's and Wallace's associates, and their associate's friends and associates, and their influencers, and their influencer's influencers, had read and cited Matthew's (1831) book, and mentioned the orignal ideas in it, before Darwin even began his first relevant private notebook of 1837-38 (Loudon and Chambers) and in the same year he penned his first private essay of 1842 (Selby). See Sutton 2014 and Sutton 2016 for the fully referenced and independently verifiable fact-led details. The unwelcome "New Data" facts prove also that both Loudon and Chambers, and Wallace's (1855) Sarawak paper's editor Selby, and Jameson - the regular correspondent of Wallace's mentor and correspondent William Hooker (William being the father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker) - all cited Matthew's (1831) book before Wallace made his first private jottings on the topic. Finally, Darwin's pre-1858 notebooks in fact prove that Darwin held in his hands five books that actually cited Matthew's 1831 book!

The newly rendered useless evidence of the existence of his notebooks and essays aside, the only remaining evidence Darwin scholars have that Matthew's (1831) book could not possibly have influenced Darwin pre 1858 is a letter that Darwin wrote to his great friend  Charles Lyell in 1860.

Following Matthew’s (1860) first priority claiming letter in The Gardeners’ Chronicle, of 7th April, Darwin wrote on 10th April to his friend Lyell that he had ordered a copy of Matthew’s book. This might be taken as strong confirmatory evidence that Darwin had never read Matthew’s book or been influenced by its original contents. Rationally, it is nothing of the sort. Darwin’s letter to Lyell merely proves, and only then if the proven liar Darwin was then telling the truth, that he did not have a copy of Matthew’s book in his possession in 1860. Darwin could easily have prior-borrowed a copy from an associate and made extensive notes. Or been supplied by others with such extensive notes. He could just have easily borrowed a copy many years earlier from the London Library, which was founded in 1841, the same year Darwin joined, and the year before he penned his private 1842 essay on natural selection. Or Darwin might have borrowed a copy of Matthew’s book years earlier from Mudie’s Library — founded in 1842 — because he was a noted keen member of both lending libraries

See Sutton 2014 for all of the references to these independently verifiable facts and much more besides that Darwin scholars apparently do not want you to read.

What Possible Motives Might Darwin Scholars have for Propagandising to Deny or Hide Uncomfortable New Facts?

I strongly suspect that professional jealousy and fear of ridicule for their own poor scholarship in failing to find what I originally discovered, in equal proportions, drives the shamefully pseudo scholarly propagandising behaviour and cannily indifferent silence of Darwin scholars who are aware of the "New Data" facts.

Dr John van Wyhe attempted to mislead the Scottish people by claiming my
peer reviewed science paper (Sutton 2016) is a conspiracy theory

I challenge any leading Darwin scholar to debate the "New Data" facts with me before an academic audience, the wider public and the press. 

Dr Mike Weale, who has written (Weale 2015) - with zero evidence to support his mere opinion that the evidence Darwin read Matthew's ideas is weak - adamantly refuses to face me in an academic debate before his peers to defend his completely unevidenced accusations that I have created a supermyth of my own about Darwin and Matthew. Weale writes, by way of excuse, that he fears, despite knowing the fact I have presented and debated  the "New Data" facts before skeptical audiences in universities and elsewhere, that I will mock him in public (Weale 2016) for his unevidenced opinions. The fact of the matter is that Weale's Darwin worship propagandizing opinions are completely disconfirmed by the new hard facts he refuses to engage with in any kind of rational honest open and public debate. 

The "New Data" facts are chasing dishonest propagandising Darwinists

For the sake of veracity in the history of scientific discovery, I will continue to present my research findings and debate them in public before academic audiences and beyond. I am more than willing to debate the facts with any leading fact denying and propagandising Darwin scholar, historian of science, or biologist who cares to do so before video cameras, 

Darwin scholars should consider me and my publications and presentations on the "New Data facts a standing open challenge to all the dishonest scientists and historians lining their pockets by misleading the public in order to promote the pseudo-scholarly publications and  profiteering paraphernalia of the Darwin deification industry.

There is a 156 year old tradition of shameful pseudo-scholarly propagandising fact denial dishonesty and blatant lying in the Darwin industry, beginning with the it's namesake's own 100 per cent proven plagiarising science-fraud by glory theft (see peer reviewed journal article proof: Sutton 2014 and Sutton 2016) sly self-serving lying about the prior readership of the original ideas in Matthew's (1831) book. 

More thoughts on Darwinist states of denial HERE

More Darwin Worship Fact Denial Propaganda

Peter Bowler (1983, p. 158) Evolution: the history of an idea, (1st and all revised editions). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. p158    :

"One writer has even gone so far as to hail Matthew as the originator of the modern evolution theory (Dempster 1996). Such efforts to denigrate Darwin misunderstand the whole point of the history of science ...Darwin's notebooks confirm that he drew no inspiration from Matthew or any of the other alleged precursors."

This is one among many instances of Darwin worship propaganda. The independently verifiable facts - as opposed to Bowler's incorrect and misleading assertions - confirm nothing at all of the kind. The facts prove the case otherwise. For example, Darwin's notebooks prove that before 1858 Darwin held in his hands five books that cited Matthew's (1831) book containing the full prior published theory of macroevolution by natural selection.

DON'T BE PUNTERIZED BY BIASED AGENDA-DRIVEN PROPAGANDA: Read "On Knowledge Contamination: New Data Challenges Claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Independent Conceptions of Matthew’s Prior-Published Hypothesis." By Mike Sutton (2016)

(Sutton 2016) to see exactly how misleading Peter Bowler is being when it comes down to the actual evidence of what we can really, definitively, with any degree of confidence say about Darwin's private essays and notebooks (footnote references excluded here) :

'As an argument that reliable evidence exists to disconfirm evidence that Matthew influenced Darwin, Bowler argues: “Darwin’s notebooks confirm that he drew no inspiration from Matthew or any of the other alleged precursors”.  Bowler’s seemingly compellingly plausible argument is worthy of further
examination in light of the independently verifiable facts. And, in light of the New Data about who we newly know did read the ideas in Matthew’s book, and most importantly when they read them, these actual facts confirm that Bowler’s argument is rendered redundant.

To begin with, there is little on natural selection, beyond a mere hint at it, in Darwin’s (1837) private “Zoonomia” notebook. 98 Not until his private essays (1842, 1844), do we see Darwin’s acknowledgement of evidence for the general process of natural selection. By 1842, Loudon had cited Matthew’s book many times following his 1832 review. And 1842 was the same year in which Selby cited Matthew. But it was not until Darwin’s jointly presented paper with Wallace  that the full hypothesis, which Matthew had prior-published, was written down by Darwin.

Following Matthew’s (1860) first priority claiming letter in The Gardeners’ Chronicle, of 7th April, Darwin wrote on 10th April to his friend Lyell that he had ordered a copy of Matthew’s book. This might be taken as strong confirmatory evidence that Darwin had never read Matthew’s book or been influenced by its original contents. Rationally, it is nothing of the sort. Darwin’s letter to Lyell merely proves, and only then if the proven liar Darwin was then telling the truth, that he did not have a copy of Matthew’s book in his possession in 1860. Darwin could easily have prior-borrowed a copy from an associate and made extensive notes. Or been supplied by others with such extensive notes. He could just have easily borrowed a copy many years earlier from the London Library, which was founded in 1841, the same year Darwin joined, and the year before he penned his private 1842 essay on natural selection. Or Darwin might have borrowed a copy of Matthew’s book years earlier from Mudie’s Library — founded in 1842 — because he was a noted keen member of both lending libraries.

There is no mention of Matthew’s (1831) book in any of Darwin’s (1838) handwritten Books to Read and Books Read private notebooks until Matthew’s (1860) claim to priority letter was published in The Gardeners’ Chronicle. However, the old adage that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, is particularly pertinent in this particular case in light of the new hard evidence unearthed from the publication record of Darwin’s bad faith regarding his account of the readership of Matthew’s book. Rationally, therefore, we should, as objective scholars, no longer simply assume that Darwin did everything in good faith. The fact of the matter is, and it is facts we must now focus on, that there is no proof, other than the dates he wrote on them in the privacy of his own home, that those dates on Darwin’s notebooks and private essays were honestly written and are therefore accurate. Furthermore, it is a fact that Darwin’s notebooks are devoid of many pages — due to them having been torn out — and that much of the remaining text in them has been scribbled out so as to deliberately render it completely illegible.

So what do the facts enable us to know for sure about the latest possible date when Darwin’s private notebooks and essays were written?' See bullet-point timeline in Sutton (2016) for the detailed answers.

More thoughts on Darwinist states of denial HERE

It is deeply regrettable that so many influential scientists, whilst claiming loudly to despise unevidenced beliefs, share the same irrational propensity for blind belief worship as the religious and dogmatic. Get the faith-free independently verifiable facts: http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/index.php/pl/czasopismo/46-fag-2015/921-fag-2015-art-05   

Exploiting New Technology to Disconfirm Mere Unevidenced Beliefs With Hard Data

Apparently @denise_tsang I am an Entrepreneurial "creative" type: https://t.co/4iI1BRCj47 pic.twitter.com/ANV3S0mWXU

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) May 7, 2016

How to Spot Independently Verifiable Fact Denial Biased Agenda-Driven Propaganda

Since the publication of my book Nullius (Sutton 2014), I have noticed that critics of the "New Data" facts in it - that the original ideas on natural selection  Matthew's book in fact were read by seven other naturalists pre-1858, because they actually cited his 1831 book, and that four were well known to Darwin, two to Wallace, that Darwin lied about the fact of Matthew's prior-readership. after he was told otherwise - have no facts to counter the veracity of these 100 percent independently verifiable facts. Consequently, to corruptly prop-up their biased and profitable newly debunked beliefs that Darwin and Wallace independently discovered natural selection, they are, unscientifically, pumping out mere rhetorical propaganda - including lying and smears - in an attempt to hide the truth and mislead the public.

Always ask any"fact deniers" what independently verifiable facts they actually have - if any - to disprove the existence of the uncomfortable facts that challenge their particular professional agenda.

Beware @C_MAlexander Agenda-driven fact denying propagandists: Ask for disconfirming facts: https://t.co/oZNTd1uRMQ pic.twitter.com/AtjPGfBqrz

Get a flavour of what is in "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret" - the book that the Darwin deification industry - does not want you to read - by reading my free open-access peer reviewed science journal article on the topic of Darwin's proven lies and glory stealing science fraud. Here (Sutton 2016)

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) May 7, 2016

French and Germans Not Fooled by Darwin Scholar Denial Tactics and Pseudoscholarly Propaganda

Meta skepticism now international @danengber French not fooled by propaganda fact denial tactics of Darwin scholars: https://t.co/jIZN6htE1C

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) May 6, 2016

The French not Fooled by Darwin Scholar Denial Tactics and Propaganda Techniques

I see today that Sputnik Fance have picked up on the injustice done to Matthew: https://fr.sputniknews.com/presse/201605041024744350-fake-marin-popeye/

Sputnik Germany also: http://de.sputniknews.com/zeitungen/20160504/309624593/vertrauen-kontrolle.html

A perfect "factstorm" has hit the Darwin Industry. And they know it. What we are seeing is their irrational denial of the inevitable. They are engaging in magical thinking - as though saying uncomfortable new facts are not facts (or are a conspiracy theory in themselves) will, like a delusional magic spell, transmute them into thin air. Darwin scholars can run, but they cannot hide. The 'New Data' facts (Sutton 2016) are chasing them like Pac-Man.

Like a Veracity Fuelled Pac-Man, the "New Data" facts are Chasing Fact-Denying Propagandist Darwin Scholars. And their Bite is Lethal for the Mighty Darwin Deification Industry.

What is Sputnik?

"Sputnik is an international multimedia service launched on 10 November 2014 by Rossiya Segodnya, an agency wholly owned and operated by the Russian government, which was created by a Decree of the President of Russia on December 9, 2013."

Of course, Sputnik might well on many occasions provide a dreadfully biased anti-West view, but - most worryingly for Darwin Scholars -  it's coverage of the facts of the Matthew and Darwin story are one step further towards confirming the Frozen Donkey Hypothesis.

More on Sputnik here   

Wikipedia Agenda Editor Fraud

Wikipedia Editors control & co-opt pages on behalf of special interest groups https://t.co/WT44jBjxET
Explains this: https://t.co/Ium2oNIEYF

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) May 5, 2016