Darwinist Pseudoscholarship Revealed

PatrickMatthew.com

Richard Dawkins Promotes Desperate Darwinist Excuses in Ludicrous Cover-Up of Darwin's Science Fraud

Public Domain

Nottingham Riots 1831

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.

Public Domain

Edited collection celebrating the Royal Society

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.

Thinker Media IncUsed only with express written permission

Nullius in Verba

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!

Trumpet form the rooftops. So long as they are not on fire!Public Domain

1831 Nottingham Riots. The same year Matthew published his incendiary book

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 .

Please share this and trumpet it from the rooftopsPublic Domain

Alfred Russel Wallace.Fraud discovered by Dr Mike Sutton (criminologist)

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…’

Tweet from the RooftopsPublic Domain

Tweet this from the Rooftops to Richard Dawkins: Darwin's Great Science Fraud was First Proven by Dr Mike Sutton 'Solver of the origin of the Origin of Species'.

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   .

All Rights ReservedUsed only with express written permission

Follow Mike on Twitter

You can follow me on Twitter here   

Richard Dawkins (2010, in Bryson [ed.]) is being either willfully ignorant or else very silly to insist Patrick Matthew should have 'trumpeted' his published (decades before Darwin) 1831 heretical discovery of natural selection from the rooftops as the explanation for all life on Earth because in the early to mid 19th century:

'Scientists had to establish the domain of natural knowledge as their own, and monitor the boundaries between science and religion." For that same reason, the rules of the Royal Society stated that its members should discuss nothing about God or politics, and news that was unconnected to the business of philosophy should be avoided at all costs (Gleick 2010).'

Read more here

Dawkins's Dysology is one of eight examples of multiple victimisation of Matthew's right to be considered an immortal great thinker and influencer in science (here).

Dawkins is very silly: https://t.co/U55UKGzXPn https://t.co/9jQwl5xOXr

— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) September 12, 2015

On Nullius in Verba: The book that uniquely re-wrote the history of the discovery of natural selection.

The book that re-wrote the
history of the discovery of
 natural selection

Prior to the publication in 2014 of the original findings in my book - Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret - the history of the discovery of natural selection was founded upon the fixed-false-belief that no one known to Darwin or Wallace had read Patrick Matthew's(1831) full prior published theory of natural selection before Darwin's and Wallace's (1858) and Darwin's (1859) claimed independent discoveries of the same explanation for all life on Earth.

In fact, prior to their replication of Matthew's 'natural process of selection', along with many of his confirmatory examples and his unique explanatory analogy, Darwin/Wallace corresponded with, were editorially assisted by, admitted to being influenced by and met with other naturalists who - it is newly discovered - had read and cited Matthew's book long before 1858.

Further newly discovered evidence, including a detailed plagiarism check, six lies Darwin told, Wallace's doctoring of a letter in his autobiography, reveals that Darwin and Wallace more likely than not plagiarised Matthew's ideas and so committed the World's greatest science fraud.

To find out about the new hi-tech, BigData research method that discovered the New Data, which debunks, with independently verifiable hard facts, the old unevidenced 'expert' majority view of Darwin's and Wallace's supposed dual, vexatiously anomalous and paradoxical immaculate conceptions of Matthew's prior published hypothesis of natural selection, please visit the website: PatrickMatthew.com

Natural History of the Darwinist: Part 1: The Postmodern Darwinist

The Postmodern Darwinist

Much good sense has been written of the intellectual harm caused by daft-as-a-brush postmodern notions that nothing is certain or objective and that all "truth" is simply a subjective social construct (see Gross et al 1996   ), which is then thought by postmodernists to be rationally and equally open to any self-servingly favourable human interpretation they or anyone else wishes to deploy, no matter how absurd.

This month (September 2015) I discovered the existence of a particular variety of Postmodern Darwinism. It's not that I had not earlier discovered weirdly anomalous pseudo-scholarship of Darwinists on the subject of Patrick Matthew' prior discovery. It was that I have only just realised their thinking on the "Matthew question" is the same type of thinking that is shared by those who promoted and those who continue to promote the ludicrous and pseudo-scholarly Postmodern Project.

My research revealed that the father of this particular variety of the postmodern movement is Charles Darwin. He kick-started it with a series of published lies    about Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior discovery of natural selection being buried solely in the appendix to his book 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture' where it supposedly remained, according to Darwin, unread by any naturalists until Matthew brought it to his notice in 1860 - the year after Darwin replicated Matthew's discovery, without citing its originator. And Darwin's self-serving lies, discoverable as such when published in the 19th century, have been disseminated by the World's leading Darwinists, as the truth, ever since.

In her exceedingly good essay Concern for Truth: What it Means, Why it Matters (in Gross et al 1996   ), Susan Haack writes (p. 59):

'Commitment to a cause and desire for reputation can prompt energetic intellectual effort. But the intelligence that will help a genuine enquirer figure things out will help a sham or fake reasoner suppress unfavourable evidence more effectively, or devise more impressively obscure formulations. A genuine inquirer, by contrast, will not suppress unfavourable evidence, nor disguise his failure with affected obscurity; so, even when he fails, he will not impede others' efforts.'

And [the genuine inquirer]:

'...is not, like the sham reasoner, unbudgeably loyal to some proposition, committed however the evidence turns out. Whatever question he investigates, he tries to find the truth of that question, whatever the color of that truth may be.

And [on the subject of why truth matters]:

'Intellectual integrity is instrumentally valuable, because, in the long run and on the whole, it advances inquiry, and successful inquiry is instrumentally valuable.'

Haack is surely right. Her last point is particularly important for those interested in the history of discovery. Because veracious knowledge about the process and context of great discoveries is essential for instrumental advance of our knowledge regarding how we might increase the probability of making others. Postmodernism, with its inherent licence to disregard rationality and plain common-sense hard-evidence-led truth, disregards inconvenient facts - both old and new - and disregards objective inquiry and it disregards the premise that it is over all, beneficial and intrinsically desirable for human beings to make instrumental progress.

Today, in light of the new Big Data discovery that 100 per cent disproves the old Darwinist fixed-false-belief that Patrick Matthew's prior published full discovery of natural selection was not read pre-1858 by any naturalist, and biologists or anyone known to Darwin or Wallace, the Postmodern Darwinist can be found in its natural habitat on The Patrick Matthew Project.There it can be observed    claiming that the words and terms “absolutely” “any other” “no single person” “no one” and “none at all” are, anomalously, not to be interpreted in either the context in which they were used by Darwin and his Darwinists, or by their objective meaning. Instead, if they represent data that proves Darwin lied and the World's leading Darwinists published deliberate and credulous Darwin-parroting falsehoods then they must be interpreted as meaning the opposite to what was actually written.

Humpty Dumpty Hatches His Masterplan

Such willful refusal to engage with the facts of the everyday accepted meaning of words and phrases and the specific context in which they are used is something we might call the 'Humpty Dumpty Masterplan'. named after what Lewis Carrol (1872) wrote in Through the Looking Glass:

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master—that's all.'

Punchinello - AKA Punchanello -
the common ancestor of
 Humpty Dumpty

And we all know what happened to Humpty Dumpty. But not many yet know from where he came. He evolved from Punchinello - whose traditional temperament was to be mean, vicious, and crafty clown deploying a main mode of defense that involves pretending to be too stupid to know what's going on.

The existence of postmodernism as an identifiable movement allows us to see that those who stupidly believe, or stupidly like Humpty Dumpty pretend to stupidly believe, that words no longer hold their unambiguous meaning - but can be reasonably believed to hold their opposite meaning even when used in an unambiguous context that makes their unambiguous meaning unambiguous - are engaging in a sham inquiry that is no different to post-modernist thinking. Such sham-inquirers are effectively postmodernists who don't even know it because they can't see the egg on their faces.

On which note, the 'Patrick Matthew Project', was set up in the wake of the Daily Telegraph Newspaper's reporting on my original discoveries in my book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret. It is owned and operated by Dr Mike Weale, Reader in Statistical Genetics at Kings College London. Apart from serving as an excellent repository of everything so far discovered that Matthew wrote (some of which was first found by your's truly) what exactly is the Patrick Matthew "project"? For one thing, its comments section contains a wealth of evidence that Darwinists, as a group, have been anomalously engaging in pseudo-scholarship over the question of Patrick Matthew's right to be considered an immortal great thinker and influencer in science for 155 years - from 1860 to the present day.

The question a genuine inquirer should ask is why?

Is the Patrick Matthew Project a Darwinist postmodern project? Is it evidence of an anomalous Darwinist flight from science and reason on the question of Patrick Matthew's right to be considered an immortal great thinker and influencer in science - with full, complete and appreciable priority over Charles Darwin?

As a 'genuine inquirer' you might care to check out the comments section    and discover whether or not one senior academic Darwinist is, arguably, (decide for yourself) engaging in stubborn resistance to the inevitable paradigm change brought about by new, independently verifiable, disconfirming evidence for Darwin's and Wallace's claimed independent discoveries of Matthew's prior published hypothesis.

Nullius in Verba dear readers.

The evolving story of Darwinist resistance to the paradigm change brought about by the new data can be followed on my website:

PatrickMatthew.com    

The Humpty Dumpty Masterplan. You just know how it will end: https://t.co/2U3HktU3uN pic.twitter.com/Ez5W6noP7C

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) September 11, 2015

Anomalous Brainmelt

Why only when it comes to hard evidence of Darwin's plagiarism of Matthew do Darwinists suffer anomalous brainmelt?https://t.co/izqLVilfIb

— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) September 11, 2015

A Portrait of Stupid Darwinist Delusion

A simple test for diagnosing credulous deifying Darwinists

Question: What is more likely: 

a) Getting the prior-published theory of natural selection from your editor (Selby) who read it in Patrick Matthew's (1831) book and then cited it years earlier (originally discovered by Sutton 2014) - or

(b) Discovering it inside your head whilst suffering from malarial brain fever after that same editor published your (Sarawak) paper on natural selection?

Darwinists are proven stupid because they still believe Wallace's fairy story is true and think the answer is b. And from that cause they have hung his picture above the plagiarist and serial liar - Charles Darwin - in the Natural History Museum in London - at tax payer's expense! How mad is that?

An Exhibition of Stupidity

Proper science @Sciencesharenew focuses on anomalies and paradoxes that dis-confirm accepted 'knowledge beliefs': http://t.co/SBIihYvf7E

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) September 6, 2015

The Double-Darwin-Dare

I challenge anyone to get the biased Darwinist Wikipedia editors to allow them to include on the Wikipedia Patrick

Darwin was nicknamed "Wriggler"
 by his best friend Joseph Hooker

Matthew page    the hard fact led 100 per cent proof that Darwin lied about the reality of who really did read Matthew's (1831) book, which contains the full hypothesis of natural selection,  pre-1860. Try it. I double-Darwin- dare you!

Here is all the proof you need, by way of reading what was written in the letters between Matthew and Darwin (1860) - published in the Gardener's Chronicle in 1860: here

Despite the fact the proof Darwin lied has been included in a peer reviewed science journal (Sutton 2016) the biased Wikipedian editors systematically delete these facts. The Patrick Matthew "View History" (deletions and additions) page proves it: Here

For further ethical adventures in veracity sharing, why not try to get Dr Mike Weale - owner of the Darwinist - Patrick Matthew Project - website to admit the painful and despicable truth that Darwinists are named for a proven self-serving liar, and that the World's leading Darwinists have been credulously parroting Darwin's lies as the truth for the past 155 years: Here.   

You can also tweet your adventures in veracity to me (AKA 'The Blessed Virgin Darwin') on Twitter: Here    

Immaculate Deception: AKA The Blessed Virgin Darwin

(c) Dr Mike Sutton - All Rights ReservedAttribution Non-commercial

Immaculate Conception by Gabe Woods Oil on Canvas 2015 (Painting AKA: "The Virgin Darwin)

This oil on canvas painting is by the Nottingham-based British portrait artist Gabriel Woods. Showing Darwin holding Patrick Matthew as his own child, it pays homage to religious pictures of the Virgin Mary and child.

This typically mesmerizing Woods portrait is a pictorial allegorical analogy painted to explain the silliness of the current 'majority view' blind belief in Darwin's and Wallace's claims to have each conceived the theory of natural selection independently of Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior published book, which expert Darwinists agree    contained the full theory 27 years before Darwin's and Wallace's papers were read before the Linnean Society in 1858.

"Immaculate Deception" is a painting after "The Holy Family" by Francesco Francia, 1510.

Public Domain

Francesco Francia (1450-1517) - The Holy Family

In the words of the artist Gabriel Woods (May 2015) as his explanation for his portrait "Immaculate Deception":

"The picture represents Charles Robert Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, who both claimed they each independently discovered the theory of natural selection with no prior knowledge of Patrick Matthew's earlier work. Patrick Matthew is represented in the allegorical painting as the infant "

The picture was commissioned, in light of new data (Sutton 2014) that proves naturalists well known the Darwin and Wallace read and then cited Matthew's book before going on to play roles at the very epicenter of influence on the pre-1858 work of Darwin and Wallace on natural selection. The Blessed Virgin St Mary's conception of Jesus of Nazareth, is a miracle because she became pregnant with the child of "God" whilst surrounded by men who were fertile to some unknown degree. The analogy is perfect because so too were Darwin and Wallace surrounded by men whose brains were fertile - to some unknown degree - with Matthew's unique ideas. Therefore, in the final analysis, if Darwin and Wallace did not conceive Matthew's unique discovery, name for it, examples of it in nature, and his artificial versus natural slection analogy of differences to explain it, by some kind of 'knowledge contamination,' then they must surely have each been mysteriously endowed with a miraculous and divine cognitive contraceptive device. See more of Wood's work on the Matthew Art and Gabriel Woods page on PatrickMathew.com   

Seriously, I don't think belief in miracles has any rational place in helping us to tell the veracious history of the discovery of the theory of natural selection.

The probability that Darwin and Wallace lied when they each claimed to have independently discovered natural selection seems more likely than not. The New Data and a wealth of further evidence about their lies and deceit suggests Darwin and Wallace committed the world's greatest science fraud by deliberately plagiarizing Matthew's book.

Background to Gabriel Wood's painting "Their Immaculate Conception"

Contrary to the Patrick Matthew Supermyth started by Darwin in 1860 in his own defense, other naturalists in fact did read Matthew's (1831) prior published theory of natural selection.

At least 25 people cited the book before 1858 and seven of those were naturalists.

The Newly Discovered 'Citing Seven', in date order of their citing of Matthew's book, are:

Public Domain

Patrick Matthew: The biological father of the theory of natural selection

1. John Loudon (1832)   ,
2. Robert Chambers (1832),
3. Edmund Murphy (1834),
4. Cuthbert Johnson (1842),
5. Prideaux John Selby (1842),
6. John Norton (1851)
7. William Jameson (1853).

Three of these seven naturalists - Loudon, Selby and Chambers - played key roles at the epicenter of influence on both Darwin's and Wallace's pre-1858 work on the theory of natural selection.

Loudon - an associate of Darwin's friends William and Joseph Hooker - edited two of Edward Blyth's (1835, 1836) hugely influential papers on species. Blyth was Darwin's most useful and prolific informant.

Selby edited Wallace's (1855) famous Sarawak paper on natural selection.

Chambers (1844) wrote the best selling Vestiges of Creation - the book that most influenced Wallace, greatly influenced Darwin, and "put evolution in the air" in the first half of the 19th century.

Barring the occurrence of a dual supernatural miracle of immaculate conception by divine cognitive contraception, some kind of 'knowledge contamination' appears more likely than not.

Thinker Media IncUsed only with express written permission

Nullius in Verba

Read Nullius in Verba    to get the full details of exactly who did read Matthew's book before Darwin and Wallace replicated the great ideas in it and claimed them as their own.

Find out how the New Data was discovered.

Learn about the controversial yet amazing F2b2 hypothesis.

Further Background to the Story

Chronology of publication-events in discreet detail of Darwin's creation of the Patrick Matthew Supermyth that no naturalists read Matthew's prior publication of the full hypothesis of natural selection before 1860

John Loudon's (1832) book review of Patrick Matthew's (1831) Naval Timber and Arboriculture: with critical notes on authors who have recently treated the subject of planting .

Loudon’s full book review of the NTA should be read very carefully, so that we might be better informed in weighing plausible speculations about what the Hookers knew, and what they might, possibly and probably, have discussed with Darwin about the book. From that cause herein follows the entire review (Loudon, 1832 p. 702-703):

Matthew Patrick: On Naval Timber and Arboriculture; with Critical Notes on Authors who have recently treated the Subject of Planting. 8vo, 400 pages. London, 1831. 12s

‘In our Number for February, 1831 (Vol. VII. P. 78.), we have given the title of this work, with a promise of a farther notice. This is, however, now so retrospective a business, that we shall perform it as briefly as possible. The author introductorily maintains that the best interests of Britain consist in the extension of her dominion on the ocean; and that, as a means to this end, naval architecture is a subject of primary importance; and, by consequence, the culture and production of naval timber is also very important. He explains, by description and by figures, the forms and qualities of the planks and timbers most in request in the construction of ships; and then describes those means of cultivating trees, which he considers most effectively conducive to the production of these required planks and timbers.

The British forest trees suited for naval purposes,” enumerated by the author, are, oak, Spanish chestnut, beech, Scotch elm, English elm, red-wood willow (Salix fragilis), redwood pine, and white larch. On each of these he presents a series of remarks regarding the relative merits of their timber; and even notices, under each, the varieties of each, and the relative merits of these varieties. Indeed our author insists particularly on the necessity of paying the greatest attention to the selection, both for planting and for ultimate appropriation, of particular varieties, he contending that vegetable bodies are so susceptible of the influence of circumstances, as soil, climate, treatment of the seed, culture of the seedling, &c &c ., as to be modified and modifiable into very numerous varieties, and that it is an essential object to select the variety most adapted to the circumstances of the plot of ground to be planted. This may be very true; but it is also true that extreme will be the difficulty of diffusing, among those most engaged in the operative processes of forestry, sensitive attention to these points.

“Miscellaneous Matter connected with Naval Timber.”

Under this head the author has remarks on nurseries, planting, pruning timber, and the relations of our marine.

The last chapter is a political one; and, indeed, throughout the book proofs abound that our author is not one of those who devote themselves to a subject without caring for its ultimate issues and relations; consequently his habit of mind propels him to those political considerations which the subject “our marine” naturally induces benefiting man universally is the spirit of the author's political faith.

Two hundred and twenty-two pages are occupied by “Notices of authors relative to timber,” in which strictures are presented on the following works: Monteath's Forester's Guide; Nicol's Planter's Calendar; Billington On Planting; Forsyth On Fruit and Forest Trees; Mr Withers's writings; Steuart's Planter's Guide; Sir Walter Scott's critique, and Cruickshank's Practical Planter. The author's opinions on the opinions and practices of these writers must avail the patient investigator of arboriculture, and those who delight in the comparison of divers and diverse opinions. This part of the book is one which has been, or will be, read with considerable interest by the authors of the above works and their partisans. An appendix of 29 pages concludes the book, and receives some parenthetical evolutions of certain extraneous points which the author struck upon in prosecuting the thesis of his book. This may be truly termed in a double sense, an extraordinary part of the book. One of the subjects discussed in this appendix is the puzzling one, of the origin of species and varieties; and if the author has hereon originated no original views (and of this we are far from certain), he has certainly exhibited his own in an original manner. His whole book is written in a vigorous, cheerful, pleasing tone; and although his combinations of ideas are sometimes startlingly odd, and his expression of them neither simple nor lucid, for want of practice in writing, he has produced a book which we should be sorry should be absent from our library. We had thought of presenting an abstract of the author's prescriptions for pruning trees intended for the production of plank; but on second thought we shall omit them, and refer the reader for them to the book of the author himself.’

Matthew's letter to the Gardener's Chronicle, claiming full priority for his discovery of natural selection.

Published April 7th 1860

   

NATURE'S LAW OF SELECTION.

TRUSTING to your desire that every man should have his own, I hope you will give place to the following communication.

In your Number of March 3d I observe a long quotation from the Times, stating that Mr. Darwin "professes to have discovered the existence and modus operandi of the natural law of selection," that is, "the power in nature which takes the place of man and performs a selection, sua sponte," in organic life. This discovery recently published as "the results of 20 years' investigation and reflection" by Mr. Darwin turns out to be what I published very fully and brought to apply practically to forestry in my work "Naval Timber and Arboriculture," published as far back as January 1, 1831, by Adam & Charles Black, Edinburgh, and Longman & Co., London, and reviewed in numerous periodicals, so as to have full publicity in the "Metropolitan Magazine," the "Quarterly Review," the "Gardeners' Magazine," by Loudon, who spoke of it as the book, and repeatedly in the "United Service Magazine" for 1831, &c. The following is an extract from this volume, which clearly proves a prior claim. The same volume contains the first proposal of the steam ram (also claimed since by several others, English, French, and Americans,) and a navy of steam gun-boats as requisite in future maritime war, and which, like the organic selection law, are only as yet making way: —

"There is a law universal in nature, tending to render every reproductive being the best possibly suited to its condition that its kind, or that organised matter, is susceptible of, which appears intended to model the physical and mental or instinctive powers, to their highest perfection, and to continue them so. This law sustains the lion in his strength, the hare in her swiftness, and the fox in his wiles. As nature, in all her modifications of life, has a power of increase far beyond what is needed to supply the place of what falls by Time's decay, those individuals who possess not the requisite strength, swiftness, hardihood, or cunning, fall prematurely without reproducing—either a prey to their natural devourers, or sinking under disease, generally induced by want of nourishment, their place being occupied by the more perfect of their own kind, who are pressing on the means of subsistence."

"Throughout this volume, we have felt considerable inconvenience, from the adopted dogmatical classification of plants, and have all along been floundering between species and variety, which certainly under culture soften into each other. A particular conformity, each after its own kind, when in a state of nature, termed species, no doubt exists to a considerable degree. This conformity has existed during the last 40 centuries. 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 on 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 organised matter, or rather to the congeries of inferior life, which appears to form superior. The derangements and changes in organised 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."

"When we view the immense calcareous and bituminous formations, principally from the waters and atmosphere, and consider the oxidations and depositions which have taken place, either gradually, or during some of the great convulsions, it appears at least probable, that the liquid elements containing life have varied considerably at different times in composition and weight; that our atmosphere has contained a much greater proportion of carbonic acid or oxygen; and our waters aided by excess of carbonic acid, and greater heat resulting from greater density of atmosphere, have contained a greater quantity of lime and other mineral solutions. Is the inference then unphilosophic, that living things which are proved to have a circumstance-suiting power—a very slight change of circumstance by culture inducing a corresponding change of character—may have gradually accommodated themselves to the variations of the elements containing them, and, without new creation, have presented the diverging changeable phenomena of past and present organised existence?"

"The destructive liquid currents, before which the hardest mountains have been swept and comminuted into gravel, sand, and mud, which intervened between and divided these epochs, probably extending over the whole surface of the globe, and destroying nearly all living things, must have reduced existence so much, that an unoccupied field would be formed for new diverging ramifications of life, which, from the connected sexual system of vegetables, and the natural instincts of animals to herd and combine with their own kind, would fall into specific groups, these remnants, in the course of time, moulding and accommodating their being anew to the change of circumstances, and to every possible means of subsistence, and the millions of ages of regularity which appear to have followed between the epochs, probably after this accommodation was completed, affording fossil deposit of regular specific character."

"There are only two probable ways of change—the above, and the still wider deviation from present occurrence—of indestructible or molecular life (which seems to resolve itself into powers of attraction and repulsion under mathematical figure and regulation, bearing a slight systematic similitude to the great aggregations of matter), gradually uniting and developing itself into new circumstance-suited living aggregates, without the presence of any mould or germ of former aggregates, but this scarcely differs from new creation, only it forms a portion of a continued scheme or system."

"In endeavouring to trace, in the former way, the principle of these changes of fashion which have taken place in the domiciles of life, the following questions occur:—Do they arise from admixture of species nearly allied producing intermediate species? Are they the diverging ramifications of the living principle under modification of circumstance? Or have they resulted from the combined agency of both? Is there only one living principle? Does organised existence, and perhaps all material existence, consist of one Proteus principle of life capable of gradual circumstance-suited modifications and aggregations, without bound under the solvent or motion-giving principle, heat or light? There is more beauty and unity of design in this continual balancing of life to circumstance, and greater conformity to those dispositions of nature which are manifest to us, than in total destruction and new creation. It is improbable that much of this diversification is owing to commixture of species nearly allied, all change by this appears very limited, and confined within the bounds of what is called species; the progeny of the same parents, under great difference of circumstance, might, in several generations, even become distinct species, incapable of co-reproduction."

"The self-regulating adaptive disposition of organised life, may, in part, be traced to the extreme fecundity of Nature, who, as before stated, has, in all the varieties of her offspring, a prolific power much beyond (in many cases a thousandfold) what is necessary to fill up the vacancies caused by senile decay. As the field of existence is limited and pre-occupied, it is only the hardier, more robust, better suited to circumstance individuals, who are able to struggle forward to maturity, these inhabiting only the situations to which they have superior adaptation and greater power of occupancy than any other kind; the weaker, less circumstance-suited, being prematurely destroyed. This principle is in constant action, it regulates the colour, the figure, the capacities, and instincts; those individuals of each species, whose colour and covering are best suited to concealment or protection from enemies, or defence from vicissitude and inclemencies of climate, whose figure is best accommodated to health, strength, defence, and support; whose capacities and instincts can best regulate the physical energies to self-advantage according to circumstances—in such immense waste of primary and youthful life, those only come forward to maturity from the strict ordeal by which Nature tests their adaptation to her standard of perfection and fitness to continue their kind by reproduction."

"From the unremitting operation of this law acting in concert with the tendency which the progeny have to take the more particular qualities of the parents, together with the connected sexual system in vegetables, and instinctive limitation to its own kind in animals, a considerable uniformity of figure, colour, and character, is induced, constituting species; the breed gradually acquiring the very best possible adaptation of these to its condition which it is susceptible of, and when alteration of circumstance occurs, thus changing in character to suit these as far as its nature is susceptible of change."

"This circumstance-adaptive law, operating upon the slight but continued natural disposition to sport in the progeny (seedling variety), does not preclude the supposed influence which volition or sensation may have over the configuration of the body. To examine into the disposition to sport in the progeny, even when there is only one parent, as in many vegetables, and to investigate how much variation is modified by the mind or nervous sensation of the parents, or of the living thing itself during its progress to maturity; how far it depends upon external circumstance, and how far on the will, irritability, and muscular exertion, is open to examination and experiment. In the first place, we ought to investigate its dependency upon the preceding links of the particular chain of life, variety being often merely types of approximations of former parentage; thence the variation of the family, as well as of the individual, must be embraced by our experiments."

"This continuation of family type, not broken by casual particular aberration, is mental as well as corporeal, and is exemplified in many of the dispositions or instincts of particular races of men. These innate or continuous ideas or habits seem proportionally greater in the insect tribes, those especially of shorter revolution; and forming an abiding memory, may resolve much of the enigma of instinct, and the foreknowledge which these tribes have of what is necessary to completing their round of life, reducing this to knowledge, or impressions and habits, acquired by a long experience. This greater continuity of existence, or rather continuity of perceptions and impressions, in insects, is highly probable; it is even difficult in some to ascertain the particular stops when each individuality commences, under the different phases of egg, larva, pupa, or if much consciousness of individuality exists. The continuation of reproduction for several generations by the females alone in some of these tribes, tends to the probability of the greater continuity of existence, and the subdivisions of life by cuttings (even in animal life) at any rate must stagger the advocate of individuality."

"Among the millions of specific varieties of living things which occupy the humid portion of the surface of our planet, as far back as can be traced, there does not appear, with the exception of man, to have been any particular engrossing race, but a pretty fair balance of powers of occupancy—or rather, most wonderful variation of circumstance parallel to the nature of every species, as if circumstance and species had grown up together. There are indeed several races which have threatened ascendancy in some particular regions, but it is man alone from whom any general imminent danger to the existence of his brethren is to be dreaded."

"As far back as history reaches, man had already had considerable influence, and had made encroachments upon his fellow denizens, probably occasioning the destruction of many species, and the production and continuation of a number of varieties or even species, which he found more suited to supply his wants, but which, from the infirmity of their condition—not having undergone selection by the law of nature, of which we have spoken, cannot maintain their ground without its culture and protection."

"It is, however, only in the present age that man has begun to reap the fruits of his tedious education, and has proven how much 'knowledge is power.' He has now acquired a dominion over the material world, and a consequent power of increase, so as to render it probable that the whole surface of the earth may soon be overrun by this engrossing anomaly, to the annihilation of every wonderful and beautiful variety of animated existence, which does not administer to his wants principally as laboratories of preparation to befit cruder elemental matter for assimiliation by his organs."

"Much of the luxuriance and size of timber depending upon the particular variety of the species, upon the treatment of the seed before sowing, and upon the treatment of the young plant, and as this fundamental subject is neither much attended to nor generally understood, we shall take it up ab initio."

"The consequences are now being developed of our deplorable ignorance of, or inattention to, one of the most evident traits of natural history, that vegetables as well as animals are generally liable to an almost unlimited diversification, regulated by climate, soil, nourishment, and new commixture of already formed varieties. In those with which man is most intimate, and where his agency in throwing them from their natural locality and dispositions has brought out this power of diversification in stronger shades, it has been forced upon his notice, as in man himself, in the dog, horse, cow, sheep, poultry—in the Apple, Pear, Plum, Gooseberry, Potato, Pea, which sport in infinite varieties, differing considerably in size, colour, taste, firmness of texture, period of growth, almost in every recognisable quality. In all these kinds man is influential in preventing deterioration, by careful selection of the largest or most valuable as breeders; but in timber trees the opposite course has been pursued. The large growing varieties being so long of coming to produce seed, that many plantations are cut down before they reach this maturity, the small growing and weakly varieties, known by early and extreme seeding, have been continually selected as reproductive stock, from the ease and conveniency with which their seed could be procured; and the husks of several kinds of these invariably kiln-dried, in order that the seeds might be the more easily extracted. May we, then, wonder that our plantations are occupied by a sickly short-lived puny race, incapable of supporting existence in situations where their own kind had formerly flourished—particularly evinced in the genus Pinus, more particularly in the species Scots Fir; so much inferior to those of Nature's own rearing, where only the stronger, more hardy, soil-suited varieties can struggle forward to maturity and reproduction?"

"We say that the rural economist should pay as much regard to the breed or particular variety of his forest trees, as he does to that of his live stock of horses, cows, and sheep. That nurserymen should attest the variety of their timber plants, sowing no seeds but those gathered from the largest, most healthy, and luxuriant growing trees, abstaining from the seed of the prematurely productive, and also from that of the very aged and over-mature; as they, from animal analogy, may be expected to give an infirm progeny, subject to premature decay."— See "Naval Timber and Arboriculture," pages 364 and 365, 381 to 388; also 106 to 108. Patrick Matthew, Gourdee Hill, Errol N.B., March 7.

Darwin's letter to his friend and botanical mentor and co-"conspirator" in the Linnean Debacle of 1858 - Wiliam Hooker 13th April 1860   

Questions of priority so often lead to odious quarrels, that I shd. esteem it a great favour if you would read enclosed. If you think it proper that I shd. send it (& of this there can hardly be question) & if you think it full & ample enough, please alter date to day on which you post it & let that be soon.— The case in G. Chronicle seems a little stronger than in Mr. Matthews book, for the passages are therein scattered in 3 places. But it would be mere hair-splitting to notice that.— If you object to my letter please return it; but I do not expect that you will, but I thought that you would not object to run your eye over it.— My dear Hooker it is a great thing for me to have so good, true, & old a friend as you. I owe much to science for my friends.

Darwin's letter to his friend and geological mentor and co-"conspirator" in the Linnean Debacle of 1858 - Charles Lyell 10th April 1860   

Now for a curious thing about my Book, & then I have done. In last Saturday Gardeners' Chronicle, a Mr Patrick Matthews publishes long extract from his work on ``Naval Timber & Arboriculture'' published in 1831, in which he briefly but completely anticipates the theory of Nat. Selection.— I have ordered the Book, as some few passages are rather obscure but it, is certainly, I think, a complete but not developed anticipation! Erasmus always said that surely this would be shown to be the case someday. Anyhow one may be excused in not having discovered the fact in a work on ``Naval Timber''.

Questions of priority so often lead to odious quarrels, that I shd. esteem it a great favour if you would read enclosed. If you think it proper that I shd. send it (& of this there can hardly be question) & if you think it full & ample enough, please alter date to day on which you post it & let that be soon.— The case in G. Chronicle seems a little stronger than in Mr. Matthews book, for the passages are therein scattered in 3 places. But it would be mere hair-splitting to notice that.— If you object to my letter please return it; but I do not expect that you will, but I thought that you would not object to run your eye over it.— My dear Hooker it is a great thing for me to have so good, true, & old a friend as you. I owe much to science for my friends.

Darwin's letter of reply to Matthew's letter of claim in the Gardener's Chronicle - Dated by Joseph Hooker and approved by Hooker.

Published April 21st 1860

   

Note: Hooker approved this letter, which was Darwin's defense reply to Matthew's letter informing Darwin that the botanist John Loudon (a renowned naturalist and member of the Linnean Soaciey and the Royal Society    of Arts had actually published a positive review of his book and the unique ideas in it.

The great scandal in the history of science here is that Hooker and his father (William Hooker) - both botanists and both great friends of Darwin - knew and had corresponded with Loudon. By this time, however, Loudon had been dead 16 years. In effect then, Hooker approved Darwin's lie in this letter that apparently no naturalist had read Matthew's book! Even though years earlier Hooker had written that Loudon was better than any naturalist in Europe for his talent and accuracy in writing about plants   , Hooker also used Loudon's design for the Derby Arboretum as the model for Kew. Moreover the names Hooker and Loudon were regularly cited together    as internationally famous and influential botanists. Yet for 155 years we have all swallowed Darwin's lie, that Hooker approved, that apparently no naturalist had read Matthew's book before Darwin in 1860:

I have been much interested by Mr Patrick Matthew's communication in the number of your paper April 17th. I fully acknowledge that he has anticipated by many years the explanation that I have offered for the origin of species, under the name of natural selection. I think that no one will feel surprised that neither I nor apparently any other naturalist had heard of Mr Matthews’ views, considering how briefly they are given and they appear in an appendix to a work on naval timber and arboriculture. I could do more than offer my sincere apologies to Mr Matthews for my entire ignorance of his publication. If another edition of my work is called for I will insert a notice to the foregoing effect. Charles Darwin, Down. Bromley, Kent.

Matthew's second letter is his reply to Darwin's defence in the Gardener's Chronicle.12th May 1860

The Origin of Species.—I notice in your Number of April 21 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, not in the market-place and not devised for this offence, but generally practised a little more than half a century ago. It was at least in part this spirit of resistance to scientific doctrine that caused my work to be voted unfit for the public library of the fair city itself. The age was not ripe for such ideas, nor do I believe is the present one, though Mr. Darwin’s formidable work is making way.

As for the attempts made by many periodicals to throw doubt upon Nature’s law of selection having originated species, I consider their unbelief incurable and leave them to it. Belief here requires a certain grasp of mind. No direct proof of phenomena embracing so long a period of time is within the compass of short- lived man. To attempt to satisfy a school of ultra sceptics, who have a wonderfully limited power of perception of means to ends, of connecting the phenomena of Nature, or who perhaps have not the power of comprehending the subject, would be labour in vain. Were the exact sciences brought out as new discoveries they would deny the axioms upon which the exact sciences are based. They could not be brought to conceive the purpose of a handsaw though they saw its action, if the whole individual building it assisted to construct were not presented complete before their eyes, and even then they would deny that the senses could be trusted. Like the child looking upon the motion of a wheel in an engine they would only perceive and admire, and have their eyes dazzled and fascinated with the rapid and circular motion of the wheel, without noticing its agency in connection with and modifying the moving power towards affecting the purposed end. Out of this class there could arise no Cuvier, able from a small fragmentary bone to determine the character and position in Nature of the extinct animal. To observers of Nature aware of the extent of the modifying power of man over organic life, and its variations in anterior time, not fettered by early prejudices, not biassed by college-taught or closet-bred ideas, but with judgment free to act upon a comprehensive survey of Nature past and present, and a grasp of mind able to digest and generalise,

I think that few will not see intuitively, unless they wish not to see, all that has been brought forward in regard to the origin of species. To me the conception of this law of Nature came intuitively as a self-evident fact, almost without an effort of concentrated thought. Mr. Darwin here seems to have more merit in the discovery than I have had—to me it did not appear a discovery. He seems to have worked it out by inductive reason, slowly and with due caution to have made his way synthetically from fact to fact onwards; While with me it was by a general glance at the scheme of Nature that I estimated this select production of species as an a priori recognisable fact—an axiom, requiring only to be pointed out to be admitted by unprejudiced minds of sufficient grasp. Patrick Matthew, Gourdie-Hill, Errol, May 2.

What might we rationally conclude from these letters in light of the New Data that 100 per cent disproves the 155 year old Darwinist Supermyth (The Patrick Matthew Supermyth) that no naturalist read Matthew's (1831) ideas before 1860?

We now know, following my unique research, that at least seven naturalists did read it. Those naturalists actually cited Matthew's book before 1860, and three of them - Loudon, Selby and Chambers - played major roles at the very epicenter of influence of the pre-1858 work by Darwin and Wallace on natural selection.

I made an error in my book “Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret   ”. It’s one to be corrected in the second edition.

When I wrote Nullius in 2014, I thought – for some reason – that Matthew told Darwin about the naturalist John Loudon’s review of “On Naval Timber” in his letter of reply to Darwin’s “apparently no naturalist read” your ideas defense.

In fact, as I have demonstrated above, Matthew (1860) told Darwin about Loudon in his very first letter to The Gardener’s Chronicle published on April 7th 1860. And that is a most important fact that has slipped under everyone's radar until I wrote these words on May 22 2015.

Here is why this fact is so important:

Darwin had his friend Joseph Hooker look over his “no naturalist read it” defense. He insisted Hooker approve his defense or else send it back to Darwin. He effectively insisted that Hooker re- date the letter to the Editor of the Gardener’s Chronicle and forward it on his behalf.

Darwin, it is well known, kept copies of all the correspondence he sent. So Darwin had a copy of the letter he sent to Hooker. By re-dating "Darwin's Defense Letter" to the Chronicle, Hooker left a paper trail that Darwin could use to claim in any future defense that what he had written by way of reply to Matthew was checked for truthfulness and its content was approved by the great and highly respected naturalist Joseph Hooker.

We should not be surprised to find Loudon giving a truthful account of what was in Matthew's book, despite its contents being heretical, because the man appeared to have an almost pathological addiction to truth and seemed unafraid of speaking out when he wanted to (see 'John Claudius Loudon and the Early Nineteenth Century in Great Britain   )' It is most interesting that Loudon had been dead 16 years by then. And it is far more interesting that Joseph Hooker, and his father William, knew Loudon, because Loudon, known then, far and wide, as "The Father of the English Garden" was a botanist! They were botanists. Loudon was a great friend of the botanist John Lindley – who was William Hookers best friend. Loudon produced the Magazine of natural history, was the author of the prestigious Arboretum Britannicum, He had even secretly co-authored a book with Lindley. He regularly wrote to William Hooker. Loudon designed the Arboretum at Derby, which served as a model for the Royal Botanical Garden's at Kew.

What was Loudon – an accredited and famous horticultural botanist – scientific journal editor (and polymath), Member of the Horticultural Society, Linnean Society and the Royal Society of Arts – if not a naturalist? Darwin knew Loudon was a naturalist, because hisprivate notebook of books read    showed he read great many of Loudon's books and copies of his Magazine of Natural History (which Darwin heavily annotated). It was Loudon who, in 1816, invented the famous sash bar that made the curved design of the glass houses at Kew Gardens, which the Hooker's ran, possible. Loudon’s 1832 review of Matthew’s book was directly adjacent to a review of Lindley’s book. And that was in the same edition that reviewed William Hooker’s book of that year. And Loudon owned and edited the journal that contained those reviews.

And yet , despite Matthew writing that Loudon had reviewed his book, Joseph hooker approved Darwin’s defense reply that apparently no naturalist had read that book before 1860! The shame of it!

Matthew’s (1860) second letter to the Gardener’s Chronicle was a reply to Darwin’s “apparently no naturalist read it” defence. Perhaps this second letter reveals that Matthew felt out of his depth arguing the toss with the great Charles Darwin about whether or not Loudon was a naturalist. Perhaps Victorian rules of gentlemanly propriety forbade him from contradicting in public what Darwin had written what he fallaciously claimed, despite Matthew's prior evidence to the contrary. Perhaps Matthew just played his hand badly, expecting Darwin to promote him honestly and with integrity as the Originator with the full and rightful priority he asked for in his first letter to the Chronicle?

Whatever the case, Matthew moved on from the Loudon evidence and simply told Darwin of another (anonymous) naturalist who taught at a university who had read his book but was afraid of teaching its heresy for fear of being pilloried on the cutty stool ( a from of being shamed in church in Scotland at the time).

Darwin ignored all of Matthew’s evidence that naturalists had read – indeed cited – his book.

From the third edition of The Origin of Species onward, Darwin wrote that Matthew’s ideas had gone unnoticed until Matthew personally brought them to Darwin’s attention in the Gardener’s Chronicle in 1860.

Darwin’s lies, and Hooker's knowing approval of them in this case, have remained undetected for these past 155 years. And it is this failure to spot them that has led so many "experts" to merely parrot and reprint Darwin's lies about Matthew's book having gone unread by any naturalists as the gospel truth. In sum, the fact that Loudon was a naturalist has passed undetected by Darwinists, who have been repeatedly taking the bait and swallowing the great lie Hooker, line and sinker!

The highly respected Darwin was a liar. His eminent and most respected friend Joseph Hooker was equally dishonestly uninterested in the truth. As if Darwin's lie in his second letter to the Gardener's Chronicle in 1860 - in the teeth of the evidence provided by Matthew that the naturalist Loudon had reviewed Matthew's book - was not enough, the following year Darwin wrote even more brazenly in a private letter, of most shameless Matthew denial propaganda, which he sent to the naturalist Quatrefages de Bréau (April 25, 1861    ):

"I have lately read M. Naudin's paper; but it does not seem to me to anticipate me, as he does not shew how Selection could be applied under nature; but an obscure writer on Forest Trees, in 1830, in Scotland, most expressly & clearly anticipated my views—though he put the case so briefly, that no single person ever noticed the scattered passages in his book."

Once we understand that Darwin was - far from being an original thinker, and far from being an honest paragon of science, -a cunning liar why should we not suspect he deliberately plagiarized the prior-published work he replicated? Is it not our scholarly duty to look further?

Loudon was a naturalist, we should look at what he did as one. And what do we find when we do that? Well I was first to find that he edited Edward Blyth’s (1855; 1856) two papers on species and organic evolution that so greatly influenced Darwin. And Darwin, from the third edition of the Origin of Species onward, admitted that Blyth was his most helpful and prolific informant.

(c) Darwin and WallaceAttribution

Miracle Double Immaculate Conceptions of the Blessed Virgins Darwin and Wallace of Matthew's prior published hypothesis of natural selection

Darwin's and Wallace's Miraculous Dual Immaculate Conceptions

Perhaps Patrick Matthew did not in way influence Charles Darwin’s so-called “independent” discovery of Matthew's prior published discovery of natural selection that Darwin's friends and influencers read before 1858? Perhaps no knowledge contamination took place at all. Instead, rather than rationally weighing the New Data, as I do in my book 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret,   " perhaps we should simply believe the improbable over what seems more likely than not? Perhaps we should have faith that a supernatural miracle of divine cognitive contraception was gifted to Darwin? And the same gifted to Wallace? A double miracle of immaculate conception of a prior published theory then.