Plagiarising Science Fraud

Plagiarising Science Fraud
Newly Discovered Facts, Published in Peer Reviewed Science Journals, Mean Charles Darwin is a 100 Per Cent Proven Lying, Plagiarising Science Fraudster by Glory Theft of Patrick Matthew's Prior-Published Conception of the Hypothesis of Macro Evolution by Natural Selection

Saturday, 25 November 2017

Seasons Greetings

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Friday, 24 November 2017

Actually, this is one example of why you can't trust the BBC






Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Thursday, 23 November 2017

Some Members of the Darwin Worship Cult are Just Like Those in the Scientology Cult

Click the image below to read the latest desperate abuse from the Darwin Worship cult



Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

Wikipedia Darwinite Editor Fraud Proven

Wikipedia Supports the Weird Darwin Warship Cult by Deleting Contrary Views held by Notable Scientists. Indeed, Wikipedia Astroturfing (fake grassroots) Agenda Editors Delete All Their Content on Wikipedia.

Live Experiment with Corrupt Wikipedia Agenda Editor Bias

May 10, 2016 4:01 am
Categories: Counterknowledge, Dysology, Internet Anti-Crime , Politics
Keywords: Patrick Matthew page, Darwin deification agenda, Dave Souza, natural selection, Wikipedia Patrick Matthew
POSTSCRIPT 2nd December 2016: Two members of the public are at last (currently at least) able to force apparently scholarly-corrupt Darwin-Lobby Agenda Editor "Dave Souza" to stop deleting facts from the historical publication record on the Wikipedia Patrick Matthew page - update HERE   

Original Blog Post

 I have blogged several times on how corrupt Wikipedia is facilitating the deletion of significant facts in order to pursue a pseudo scientific propaganda-driven Darwin deification agenda at the expense of the independently verifiable disconfirming historical facts.
To date, these Wikipedia-Agenda-Editor-Clowns immediately delete any fully referenced - even scientific journal peer reviewed  - 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 agenda 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.'   
Despite their bizarre pseudo scholarly attempts to bury Darwin's newly unearthed skeletons by fact deletion and fact denial fraud, 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.
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.
CLICK THE IMAGE AND IT WILL ENLARGE SO YOU CAN READ THE TEXT
image
Attribution
The text that Wikipedia editor Dave Souza claims does not exist is 100 per cent proven to exist. It is here.
Wikipedia editor/s hiding behind the name "Dave Souza" has/have done this same fact deletion thing before (CLICK TO SEE THE EVIDENCE AND DISCUSSION   ) 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 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?

#Wikigate
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"   
Here you have just witnessed an example of what we might call Wikipedia Agenda Editor Fraud. If ever the FBI investigate Wikipedia editors for engaging in corrupt astroturfing fact denial fraud I will make this information available to them.


+
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Tuesday, 21 November 2017

The Term is the Concept and that's what has confused so many scientists

It is a myth - credulously parroted in hundreds of publications - that Richard Dawkins coined both the concept and term "selfish gene". The fully evidenced mythbust is here: https://archive.li/CvdUy 
Whilst he has, to his credit, admitted that the concept of the selfish gene was William Hamilton's, he has never - to my knowledge - not ever admitted that the all the books, journals, websites etc are wrong to claim he coined the term. Since the term is the concept, that is why so many expert scientists have been confused by this and written that Dawkins coined both the term and concept.
Charles Darwin did the exact same thing with Patrick Matthew's original discovery and prior publication of the full theory of macroevolution by natural selection Matthew coined the term for his theory: 'natural process of selection' Darwin shuffled those same four words into their only grammatically correct equivalent; "process of natural selection." And, just as in the Dawkins case, thousands of scientists now write that Darwin discovered the theory. Read 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret' for the full story of Darwin's newly proven plagiarism by glory stealing lies and for more on Richard Dawkins effectively insisting that the (now newly discovered in print) history of repression of Matthew's ideas - due to their heresy and sedition - should be ignored and that Matthew never understood what he discovered or else he would surely have "trumpeted it from the rooftops".
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

The 600 page ebook version of Nullius has been pirated

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Sunday, 19 November 2017

The Delusional Wishful Thinking Nonsense Written by Darwin Worshippers Does not Stand up to the Actual Verifiable Facts

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Saturday, 18 November 2017

More piracy of my e-book Nullius in Verba

+
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Despite the laughable and pathetic desperate Scientology-like "squirrel busting" behaviour of the Darwin Worship cult and delusional thinking and dishonesty of some members of the scientific community, facts will always out in the end

I am delighted to see that a new four-star review of my book provides a very objective and accurate account of the independently verifiable facts that some in the Darwin Workshop cult do not want you to read
+
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Saturday, 11 November 2017

On the Problem of Multiple Coincidences: A new Sherlock Holmes mystery



In vol. 1 of the paperback edition of Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret (Sutton 2017) I pose the problem for science of how to determine how many multiple coincidences are required to sum to the probability that they are not coincidental at all. In my book, the question is raised with regard to the newly discovered evidence about who Darwin and Wallace knew, and who their greatest influencers and facilitators, and influencer's influencers, and friends knew who read and cited Patrick Matthew's (1831) book 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture', often cited as Matthew's 'Treatise On Naval Timber' (e.g. Jameson 1831) containing the complete original prior-published theory of macroevolution by natural selection before Darwin and Wallace replicated its bombshell breakthrough, terms and highly idiosyncratic explanatory examples decades later.

Professor Robert Jameson (1831)


Today, I was made aware of a Sherlock Holmes story entitled The Naval Treaty (Doyle, A. C. 1894). In this story, I wish to draw your attention to the following text:

“There is nothing in which deduction is so necessary as in religion,” said he, leaning with his back against the shutters. “It can be built up as an exact science by the reasoner. Our highest assurance of the goodness of Providence seems to me to rest in the flowers. All other things, our powers our desires, our food, are all really necessary for our existence in the first instance. But this rose is an  extra. Its smell and its color are an embellishment of life, not a condition of it. It is only goodness which gives extras, and so I say again that we have much to hope from the flowers.”

Coincidentally with the title of Matthew's book so often being called 'Treatise on Naval Timber', Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes mystery 'The Naval Treaty' is about the theft and copying of a highly important document, which is a naval treaty.

Now, arguably, the catalytic multiple coincidence in this story is that Conan Doyle refers to flowers as providing evidence of  a "goodness" in nature. Providence, in the context in which he uses the word in the quotation above refers to the Christian belief religious notion of a creator, their belief in what they see as "God's" intervention in our world.

In the same century but years before Conan Doyle's Naval Treaty was published Patrick Matthew, poignantly wrote to Charles Darwin on how he also believed flowers were evidence of the existence of the design of the so-called  "Creator". He did so in 1862 and again in 1871:
‘Your's in tracing out the admirably balanced scheme of Nature all linked together in dependant connection—the vital endowed with avariation-power in accommodation to material change. Altho' this is a grand field for contemplation, yet am I tired of it— of a world where my sympathies are intended to be bounded almost exclusively to my own race & family. I am not satisfied with my existence to devour & trample upon my fellow creature. I cannot pluck a flower without regarding myself a destroyer.’
‘That there is a principle of beneficence operating here the dual parentage and family affection pervading all the higher animal kingdom affords proof. A sentiment of beauty pervading Nature, with only some few exceptions affords evidence of intellect & benevolence in the scheme of Nature. This principle of beauty is clearly from design & cannot be accounted for by natural selection. Could any fitness of things contrive a rose, a lily, or the perfume of the violet. There is no doubt man is left purposely in ignorance of a future existence. Their pretended revelations are wretched nonsense.’
In 1831 (page 265) Matthew, who we know believed in a "Creator" in later life (see here) used the capitalised word Providence:



Did Wallace Serve as Muse to Conan Doyle's Naval Treaty?

I have no firm idea what we can make of these possible multiple coincidences or possible evidence that Conan Doyle was influenced by Darwin's replication of Matthew's valuable Naval Treatise. I suppose, for me there is not enough triangulating evidence to weigh in order to allow us to rationally suggest probability lays one way or the other. But those of you inspired to dig deeper for it might be interested to learn that Conan Doyle was a correspondent of the other supposedly immaculate conceiver of Matthew's prior published theory, namely Alfred Wallace (e.g. see here). Conan Doyle (1921) had this to say of Wallace:

 'I pray that it be so, for few men have lived for whom I have greater respect; wise and brave, and mellow and good. His biography was a favourite book of mine long before I understood the full significance of Spiritualism, which was to him an evolution of the spirit on parallel lines to that evolution of the body which he did so much to establish.'

Furthermore, Conan Doyle was a great admirer of Darwin (see here).

Conan Doyle was also embroiled amongst the suspects and story of the great Piltdown Man fraud of the fake missing link that would support the theory of evolution, particularly of humans being descended from earlier apes  (e.g. here).

Interestingly, another suspect in the Piltdown Man case was Sir Arthur Keith. Notably, he was the beloved mentor of Jim Dempster who has written three classic books on Patrick Matthew and Darwin's and Wallace's replications (see here). Dempster (1957) dedicated his book: 'Experimental Surgical Studies' to Sir Arthur Keith.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was also a member of the "Ghost Club" along with Charles Dickens (e.g. here), in this case, the possible route for Matthewian "knowledge contamination" (see Sutton 2105) connection between Dickens and Conan Doyle being that Dickens and Darwin were both members of the Athenaeum Club, both having joined on the very same day (Sutton 2014). Moreover, in a gushing review of Darwin's Origin of Species. Charles Dickens's Magazine 'All the Year Round' (1860) quoted a paragraph word-for-word straight out of Matthew's (1831) original prose yet never cited Matthew as its source. The unjustly uncited quote is to be found here.

References

Matthew, P. (1862) Letter: Matthew, Patrick to Darwin,C. R. December 3rd. Darwin Correspondence Database. http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-3843   accessed on Sat Aug 3 2013.
Matthew, P.(1871) Letter: Matthew,Patrick to Darwin, C. R. 12 Mar.Darwin Correspondence Database, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-7576    accessed on Sat Aug 3 2013.
Doyle, A. C. (1894). The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes. London, England: George Newnes.

I wrote a blog on Matthew and his notion of flowers as evidence for Providence back in 2014. Here it is reproduced:

A Better Explanation for the Scientific Problem of Beautiful Flowers Than "God Did It".



Why do some plants have beautiful flowers? 

Sabbagh (2001 p. 19) explains:
‘In earlier pre-Darwin centuries, of course, the purpose of flowers was to enhance the beauty of the world and make it more pleasant for the acme of divine creation – ourselves – by contributing to the colourful and scented environment. The advent of the theory of evolution by natural selection means that we have to look for a more hardheaded answer, one expressed in terms of the value to the species of putting a lot of investment into surrounding the inconspicuous reproductive organs with complex, ornate and highly visible appendages. And the answer is that plants that have colourful and imaginatively sculptured flowers are those that depend for survival on attracting insects to them to carry pollen – the male seed- from the interior of the flowers to the eggs of another member of the species, or even to other parts of themselves to fertilize the flowers and produce the seeds for the next generation.’

Why do other plants have dull, hardly discernible, flowers? 

The reason why plants, such as the class known as grasses, to which all cereals belong, have insignificant and unremarkable flowers is because they rely on the wind for pollination. The wind is blind, absent nose or brain, which means you can't seduce it with beauty, perfume or any other wiles. Whilst winds can be vortexed by geological and man-made features, and influenced in other ways by plant life - that's an altogether different and far more complicated story. 

Take a few moments to contemplate the sinisterly seductive nature of beautiful flowers.

Beautiful flowers appeal across the species barrier to pollinating insects such as bees, butterflies and beetles. Anecdotaly, my dog used to spend time sniffing blooms when, seemingly, no one was watching. I've seen cats and foxes do the same - sniffing one individual bloom, and then another, presumably, therefore, not the musk or urine spray of a potential mate or rival. This is not so weird as it sounds when we realise that by so doing the mammal might take part in the process of pollination as pay back for getting a nice nectar-sweet scent to sniff. 
But animal anecdotes aside, the main aim of this blog is to begin to explore why it is that flowers are associated with human romance, friendship, courtship, weddings, funerals and other ceremonious occasions? More precisely, I want to explore the following question: Why on Earth do we, who are not insects for whom flowers were selected by nature, like them so much?

Is something going on between us and flowers? 

According to most Darwinists, our perception of the beauty of flowers is a thing of chance, a random happenstance of how natural selection created them over many millions of years to entice insects to pollinate their owners, combined with our own attraction to symmetry. And if our love of flowers is naught but a cultural artifact and consequence of our attraction to symmetry in our own mating choices then that simple explanation of why flowers so appeal to us would be enough. But let us step outside the random-mutant-successful-selection box for a moment. I’m not questioning natural selection here. Rather, I wish to contemplate the possibility that nature’s selection of flowers might have resulted in a genuine objective beauty that should demand our consideration beyond the premise that it is a mere cultural –subjective-eye-of beholder assessment. Let me be clear that there is no need to reject the theory of natural selection by contemplating this seemingly implausible possibility that flowers might just be objectively beautiful as an explanation for why both humans and insects find them so attractive.
Humans have been deeply interested in beauty of flowers for a long time. As Karl Sabbagh (2001, pp. 16-17)) informs us in his excellent book on a Victorian botanical fraud, the great naturalist Charles Ray wrote in 1660 of the beauty of flowers.Sabbagh quotes the Latin translation from Raven (1942) that is as true of people today as it was over 300 years ago:
‘…the various beauty of plants, the cunning craftsmanship of nature. First the rich array of spring-time meadows, then the shape, colour and structure of various plants fascinated and absorbed me: interest in botany became a passion.
…Of course there are people entirely indifferent to the sight of flowers of meadows in spring, or if not indifferent, at least preoccupied elsewhere. They devote themselves to ball-games, to drinking, gambling, money-making,popularity-hunting.’
There is no need to get off the Internet to enjoy flowers, you can have a look at a vast array online – flower-porn if you will (click to check it ou   t).
Beautiful are they not? Still, most of us prefer the real thing, naturally.
Lucky man that I consider myself, besides my beautiful wife there is a bowl of real tulips before me as I write these words. And I’m currently getting writing space by distracting my five year old daughter with the task of pretending she is a bee – taking the yellow pollen from one flower to the next. She’s still working on the problem of why she thinks they are as beautiful as butterflies, but is repulsed by some of the beetles that pollinate them. I might have to explain the "birds and the bees" to her soon, because she just asked how the plants make seeds.

Anyway, back to natural selection and the question of objective beauty 

The newly proven true and only independent discoverer of natural selection (see Sutton 2014), Patrick Matthew, poignantly wrote to the great science fraudster and plagiarist Charles Darwin on flowers in 1862 and again in 1871:
Matthew (1862):
‘Your's in tracing out the admirably balanced scheme of Nature all linked together in dependant connection—the vital endowed with avariation-power in accommodation to material change. Altho' this is a grand field for contemplation, yet am I tired of it— of a world where my sympathies are intended to be bounded almost exclusively to my own race & family. I am not satisfied with my existence to devour & trample upon my fellow creature. I cannot pluck a flower without regarding myself a destroyer.’
Matthew to Darwin: (Matthew 1871):
‘That there is a principle of beneficence operating here the dual parentage and family affection pervading all the higher animal kingdom affords proof. A sentiment of beauty pervading Nature, with only some few exceptions affords evidence of intellect& benevolence in the scheme of Nature. This principle of beauty is clearly from design & cannot be accounted for by natural selection. Could any fitness of things contrive a rose, a lily, or the perfume of the violet. There is no doubt man is left purposely in ignorance of a future existence. Their pretended revelations are wretched nonsense.’
Rightly keen to demolish the myth of supernatural design by a bearded being in the sky, Richard Dawkins (1996, p.256) does not consider the possibility of objective beauty:
‘I was driving through the English Countryside with my daughter, Juliet, then aged six and she pointed out some flowers by the wayside. I asked her what she thought wild flowers were for. She gave a rather thoughtful answer. ‘Two things’, she said ‘To make the world pretty, and to help the bees make honey for us.’ I was touched by this and sorry I had to tell her that it wasn’t true.’
Dawkins then goes on to write that his daughter’s response was little different from that which had been given since the middle ages –that man has dominion over nature, which is there for his delight.

Quantum physicist David Deutsch (2011) has something deeper than Dawkins to say on flowers and beauty.

Deutsch questions the possibility that we find flowers attractive because they share an objective beauty that was necessary in natural selection in order to cross the species barrier with unquestionably clear signals between plants and insects. Do we find flowers beautiful for that reason? The question is certainly a science problem in need of a solution. If Deutsch is right it might explain why so many scientists have been led astray by the beauty of flowers to think that they simply must have been purposefully designed by an omnipotent bearded spirit in the sky.
Is there something more than simply our own attraction to symmetry in our perception of the beauty of flowers? Might it be that they are objectively beautiful as a result of what it takes to signal clearly across the species barrier? Could it be also due to the fact that we share DNA with plants and insects - all three species having evolved from a common ancestor? For example, humans - it is now well known - share 98 per cent of the same genes with chimpanzees, but did you know we share 25 per cent of the same gene types as banana plants, 18 per cent with certain weeds and 44 per cent with fruit flies.    
I only wish Patrick Matthew could have known what we know today. How delighted I think that immortal great rational thinker in science would be to have evidence-led knowledge-gap-filling answers that are better explanations than a superstitious belief in divine Creators..
Writing in the freedom-space provided by the 18th century enlightenment, Matthew (1831) saw, erroneously as it turned out, no need to employ arguments regarding whatever belief he may, or may not, have had that the Christian, or any other, "God" might have had a hand in it as a political get-out-clause when he shared his unique discovery of natural selection (Matthew 1831, p.381):
‘Geologists discover a like particular conformity – fossil species – through the deep deposition of each great epoch, but they also discover an almost complete difference to exist between the species or stamp of life, of one epoch from that of every other. We are therefore led to admit either of a repeated miraculous creation; or of a power of change, under a change of circumstances, to belong to living organized matter, or rather to the congeries of inferior life, which appears to form superior. The derangements and changes in organized existence, induced by a change of circumstance from the interference of man, affording us proof of the plastic quality of superior life, and the likelihood that circumstances have been very different in the different epochs, though steady in each tend strongly to heighten the probability of the latter theory.’

What about Darwin?

Darwin typically plodded behind in the footsteps of others. In that sense he was just like Robert Chambers (1844), who had years earlier read and cited Matthew's (1831) book before writing the Vestiges of Creation (see Sutton 2014 for a fact-based discussion), which contained very similar ideas about evolution. Darwin (1859), like Chambers, also deliberately allowed a role for "God" in his book. Incidentally, Chambers's (1844) book - in all its many editions - is widely acknowledged to have hugely influenced the work of both Darwin and Wallace.
In his first and other editions of the Origin of Species, Darwin (1859) wrote as though there is a supernatural “Creator” who designed natural selection as a law of nature to make and break species (Darwin 1859 p.489)
‘Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual.’
As we can see, Darwin, contrary to so much Darwinist mythmongering, kept his "God" in the Origin of Species. Nonetheless, outside the politics of appeasing the Church and all its believers, I suspect he was as stumped as Matthew by the strange appeal of flowers:
“,,, a story told by Lord Avebury in his address at the Darwin-Wallace celebration of the Linnean Society of London on July 1st, 1908. It runs thus :— "One of his friends once asked Mr. Darwin's gardener about his master's health, and how he had been lately. 'Oh!' he said, my poor master has been very sadly. I often wish he had something to do. He moons about in the garden, and I have seen him stand doing nothing before a flower for ten minutes at a time. If he only had something to do I really believe he would be better."
Besides pollinating those flowers by sticking his nose inside one and then another, was Darwin, at turns, contemplating his so-called "Creator"? Perhaps he was pondering Matthew's great discovery and the beauty of his own great science fraud?
We can understand his behaviour, and discover more about what he did, but can't even attempt to know the mind of Darwin, because about what he secretly thought we can but wonder.
On more solid ground, science, not speculation, can help us solve the riddle of why so many rational thinkers have been led-astray by notions of beauty being a signal sent purposively to humans by a divine "Creator", rather than consequently to us after jumping the barrier between different species. Who knows what pay-off's such knowledge might have? Is David Deutsch (2011) onto something big? Perhaps the UN should sanction the placing of flowers in gun barrels in conflict zones? Might there be a ultimate flower, just waiting to be bred by artificial selection for communicating Peace and Love? If flowers signal to us because we share some 25 per cent of the DNA of plants, and even more of the DNA of insects, might the right variety of flower have certain crime reduction capacities? Would anyone be so bold as to explore such a seemingly ludicrous proposition, when so many modern humans are, as has always been the case, more concerned with ball games, money making, gambling, and popularity hunting?

As is always the case, human society cannot be reasonably distilled into convenient binary explanations. Jesus of Nazareth, Newton, Einstein, Matthew and Darwin were all great popularity hunters. Some were more circumstance suited than others to succeed, of course. But knowledge and our knowledge of history and veracity evolves - ultimately, we can but hope, it evolves towards a more accurate representation of reality. A representation that relies upon hard facts, firm evidence and not just the mere thoughts and lies of ambitious and popular men with beards.
Postscript 25th February 2015
On 21 Feb 2015 I directed Professor David Deutsch - via Twitter - to this blog post and asked his opinion of my insect and plant DNA explanation for the seemingly universal beauty of flowers. He very kindly used Twitter to reply.
The screenshot of Prof. Deutsch's reply is below. He wrote:
'Implausible, I think, because one side only has genes for creating the patterns and the other only for recognising them.'
image
Public Domain
David Deutsch thinks it unlikely our shared plant and insect DNA is responsible for why we are so attracted to flowers
.
At this point, as a social scientist, I must admit I'm now out of my depth as well as league. I must defer to Prof. Deutsch's superior knowledge in this area. However, I would like to invite confirmatory or dis-confirmatory opinions for Matthew's, Dawkins's and my own ideas on the fascinating question of the beauty of flowers.

References

Chambers, R. 1844. Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. New York. Wiley and Putnum. (published anonymously).
Dawkins, R. (2006) Climbing Mount Improbable. New York.Norton.
Deutsch, D.(2011) The Beginning of Infinity: Explanations that Transform the World. Allen Lane – The Penguin Group.
Matthew, P. (1831). On Naval Timber and Arboriculture: With a critical note on authors who have recently treated the subject of planting. Edinburgh. Adam Black. London. Longman and Co.
Matthew, P. (1862) Letter: Matthew, Patrick to Darwin,C. R. December 3rd. Darwin Correspondence Database. http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-3843   accessed on Sat Aug 3 2013.
Matthew, P.(1871) Letter: Matthew,Patrick to Darwin, C. R. 12 Mar.Darwin Correspondence Database, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-7576    accessed on Sat Aug 3 2013.
Raven, C.E. (1942) John Ray, Naturalist. Cambridge.Cambridge University Press.
Sabbagh, K.(2001) A Rum Affair: A true story of botanical fraud. Da Capo Press.

+
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)