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

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

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

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

In the Public Interest

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

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

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

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

'Collective memory is pressed into shape by being repressed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The "New Data" facts are chasing dishonest propagandising Darwinists

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

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

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

More thoughts on Darwinist states of denial HERE

Challenging the assumption of authenticity: Sticking with Facts, There is No Actual Proof the Proven Serial Liar Darwin Wrote a Word on Natural Selection Until 1857

Many trusted scientists have shocked the world by falsifying their data (e.g see: David Friedrichs 2009 for some examples). Shockingly, it is newly discovered that Charles Darwin, the much loved scientist of legendary (now mythical) honesty, fabricated facts in order to be awarded the mantle - by his influential friends and associates - of independent great original discoverer of Patrick Matthew's prior-published discovery of natural selection.

To date (4th January 2016) Darwin's biographers and other commentators have taken at face value the dates Darwin wrote on and in his private notebooks and essays as valid evidence of when they were written. They have done so in order to make the argument that those who went into print before Darwin did not influence his 'independent discoveries' of the same prior-published ideas. In this blog post I challenge logic and reason of this mere 'assumption of authenticity'. The challenge to belief in Darwin's essential honesty is made in light of the facts that Darwin is proven to have lied many times in order to successfully position himself above others whose ideas he replicated and passed-off as his own,

(1)  Darwin's book 'The Voyages of the Beagle' was first published in 1839, but sold poorly. Switching publishers, he inserted swathes of new text in the 1845 second edition of the Voyages of the Beagle without a word of explanation. This conveniently created the false impression that he was interested in the question of the evolution of varieties and the origin of species whilst on the Galapagos Islands and elsewhere on his travels on the HMS Beagle - rather than when he actually became interested many years later from studying the published work of other authors. (Here)

 (2) And we know Darwin lied blatantly in 1860, 1861 and thereafter  about the readership of Matthew's prior-publication. (Here).

(3) And Darwin  told a total of six lies to corrupt the history of the discovery of natural selection. (Here).

The time for celebration of Darwin's honesty and originality has been brought to an end by disconfirming facts 

In the blog post I reveal that outside of Darwin's handwriting on the documents the Darwin family and others turned up from his home years after his death, that there is no independent evidence that this proven serial liar (who, incidentally, was as a very young child, according to his own private essay, an attention seeking inventor of deliberate falsehoods) really did write anything on natural selection before 1857. It is important that we admit to ourselves that anyone who was capable of the science fraud deceptions and lies that Darwin is 100 per cent newly proven to have perpetrated in letters and publications from 1860 onward would be equally capable of creating in his own private study an easily faked false paper trail by adding false dates to his unpublished notebooks and essays. Such faking the paper trail behaviour is standard practice in many white collar crimes - including science fraud This is a very painful reality to grasp. But the facts of what we do absolutely know and what we actually don't absolutely know do speak for themselves,  We owe it to the veracious history of the discovery of natural selection to never again enter another credulous Darwin worshipping, assumption of authenticity, 'state of denial'. Our watchword should be nullius in verba.

In 1857, two years after seeing Wallace's 1855 Sarawak paper, Darwin sent what he said was merely an abstract of a larger essay  (which nobody had seen at the time) on the topic to Asa Gray. In 1858, the following year, soon after he had seen Wallace's Ternate Paper, Darwin sent an essay to Joseph Hooker. Darwin claimed to have written it as early as 1839 and had it transcribed in 1844. But there is no independently verifiable proof whatsoever that he did any such thing.

Given the proof of his lying plagiarising science fraud by glory theft, outside of any Darwin-love 'states of denial' we should no longer take anything he wrote at face value, because Darwin is 100 per cent proven to have been a lying, scheming and selfish dishonest rogue.

Here are the only independently facts of the matter. We must stick with the facts only in the story of the discovery of natural selection

• 25 th June 1858: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2294.xml Darwin writes to Lyell that Wallace's Ternate paper has nothing in it that was not in his [1844] essay that he claims Hooker read a dozen years earlier (if Darwin was telling the truth - that would mean Hooker read it in 1846).
• 29 June 1858 Darwin writes to Joseph Hooker https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-2298.xml;query=2298;brand=default. He writes: 'But you are too generous to sacrifice so much time & kindness.— It is most generous, most kind. I send sketch of 1844 solely that you may see by your own handwriting that you did read it.' This letter, however, is not proof of the date Hooker read it and no proof of the date it was given to him] all we have is a letter of 1845  (a year after the publication of the Vestiges) that he has written some kind of essay.
• The Darwin Correspondence Project tells us what Darwin had written on the "sketch of 1844" :'CD refers to the extensive table of contents prefixed to the fair copy of his essay of 1844 (DAR 113). On the third (unnumbered) page, he wrote in ink: ‘This was sketched in 1839 & copied out in full, as here written & read by you in 1844’. CD probably refers to an occasion in 1845 when he invited Hooker to read his manuscript (Correspondence vol. 3, letter to J. D. Hooker, [5 or 12 November 1845]). See also n. 4, above.'
• What the Darwin Correspondence site does not emphasise is that Hooker could not have read something in 1844 when he only first told Hooker about its existence in 1845! He did so in a letter to Hooker of 5 or 12 Nov 1845 http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-924 : 'I wish I could get you sometime hence to look over a rough sketch (well copied) on this subject, but it is too impudent a request.'
• There is no evidence Hooker replied to confirm any of this. 
•  To reiterate: There is no direct evidence at all (other than Darwin's letter telling Hooker he did read it a year before Darwin even mentioned it to him!). There is no supporting letter of reply from Hooker. So no evidence Hooker saw the essay until 1858! The earliest solid dated evidence we have that Darwin actually had written any kind of essay is that he sent a mere abstract of one to Gray in 1857!
• On 5th September 1857, Darwin wrote to Asa https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-2136.xml;query=2136;brand=default: "You will, perhaps, think it paltry in me, when I ask you not to mention my doctrine; the reason is, if anyone, like the Author of the Vestiges, were to hear of them, he might easily work them in, & then I shd have to quote from a work perhaps despised by naturalists & this would greatly injure any chance of my views being received by those alone whose opinion I value.—"

Conclusion

There is no independently verifiable evidence whatsoever that Darwin definitely wrote a word on natural selection before 1857! This does not constitute any kind of evidence that Darwin fabricated the dates on his essays and diaries, But it is evidence that all we have is our belief in his honesty that he didn't. This is an important point, because Darwin is a newly proven lying plagiarising science fraudster by glory theft. Darwin could have doctored all other dates on the private essays and notebooks in the privacy of his home. And Hooker - as we have seen in his signed approval of the 1860 and 1861 lies Darwin wrote that no naturalists read Matthew's ideas - was quite prepared to collude in Darwin's scheming deliberate lies.

Robert Chambers's best selling book on evolution the Vestiges of Creation was first published in 1844. I originally discovered that In 1832 Chambers cited Matthew's book (See Sutton 2014). Darwin's correspondent and associate Robert Chambers - persuaded Huxley to defend Darwin in a historical debate against Bishop Wilberforce.

Chambers and Darwin met and corresponded in 1847 and thereafter engaged in further correspondence. In 1847 (See Letter from Darwin to Chambers Feb 28th 1847). Chambers gave Darwin a copy of the Vestiges, leading Darwin to write to his friend Joseph Hooker that he knew Chambers was its secret author.

Darwin told Lyel he thought Chambers was the author of the vestiges (see his March 1847 letter to Lyell and in his Feb 1846 in Letter to Hooker  Darwin is quite convinced Chambers is author of The Vestiges. And by 18th April 1847 Darwin tells Hooker he is now convinced Chambers is the author of the Vestiges. And being more circumspect in
June 1848 - Darwin speculates with Lyell that Chambers is the author of the Vestiges of Creation. 

So what we know for sure here - for an independently verifiable fact is that:

• Chambers read the first full publication of the theory of natural selection and then cited it in 1832.(See: Chambers, R. (1832) in Chambers, W. and Chambers, R. Chambers's. Edinburgh Journal. William Orr. Saturday March 24th. p. 63). 
• Chambers then met and corresponded with Darwin in 1847. That is an entire decade before we have any absolute proof that that the proven liar wrote a word on natural selection.
• The route for plausible and possible direct knowledge contamination of Matthew's ideas- orally - from Chambers to Darwin existed in 1847. This is an entire decade before we have any absolute proof Darwin wrote a word on natural selection!
• In 1859 Chambers wrote a review of Darwin's (1859) Origin of Species. In that review he was the first person after Matthew to write Matthew's original term 'natural process of selection' - the very term that Darwin (1859) was first to four-word-shuffle into its only possible grammatically correct  equivalent 'process of natural selection'! (see Sutton 2014).

More Darwin Worship Fact Denial Propaganda

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More thoughts on Darwinist states of denial HERE

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

Jim Dempster's Correspondence: The Wavertree Letters [Letter 10]

Written in 1996. Undated. But written immediately after publication of his second book. This is the last of the 10 transcribed of the 11 Wavertree Letters from the retired surgeon and pioneering human organ transplant research scientist Jim Dempster to Ian Hardie of the Patrick Matthew Trust

Jim Dempster

Dear Ian,

Thanks for yours of the 11th.

Please give the books away as I have done here. The prof of Zoology at Edinburgh seems a nice guy; send him one. Send them to the academic departments in each big town.

 Hutton. I told you the mess Simmonds got into without looking up my book’s index! I spend some time on Hutton. He is the father of British Geology. Lyell took most of Hutton and added some relevant points and called it Uniformitarianism which dispensed with catastrophes (of Cuvier) and mass extinctions; these are now back after 170 years! If you find some on or thing new – look up the index. Harper will speak on Biodiversity. Diversity was introduced by Cuvier – the four main branches of animal life; he denied any heredity link along the branches but Lamarck added ‘branches’. Matthew introduced ‘diverging ramifications of life forms occupying a new field’ after a catastrophe. Edward Blyth (1835-37) came in with reiterate diversity and ramifications. Darwinists try to argue that Darwin introduced diversity; some mad American thought Darwin lifted divergence from Wallace. See my book. See page 132 for what Darwin missed in South Africa.

Photographs. The only one I have I sent to Australia for a Scot, based in Queensland, who wants to include in his book a word about Matthew.

I am sending you a brief outline of evolutionary paradigms. Paradigm is the ‘in’ word: American, of course! I have given the historical development of the ideas. Now that Cuvier’s catastrophes and mass extinctions are back Matthew’s paradigm is up do date. Darwin hated Cuvier – for some reason. Jealousy? He wrote that the catastrophes had been invented. This is in my book.

I have the impression that Darwinists are not aware that the “Lyell-Darwin evolutionary paradigm’ had abolished catastrophes and mass extinction. Test the audience on this!

Simmonds will not be going to Dundee. There is so much in my book one has to spend weeks on it. Simmonds keeps on finding things and fails to look at my index. I have not missed much and the few points I have missed I have committed to essays. Did I send you ‘the Consequences of punctuated equilibrium’? I have discussed the theory in my book. Gould and Eldredge – lifelong Darwinist propagandists now have a new role an ‘anti-Darwin mode’ which is punctuated eq. This restores the catastrophes and mass extinctions and much else which disagrees with Darwinism. BUT little about Lamarck and Cuvier!

Kilpatrick. No enclosed article! The Scots have forgotten all their great men – Hutton, John Hunter (our Lamarck), Robert Grant (teacher of Darwin at Edinburgh and later prof. at University College, London – 1828). I deal with them in my book. Hunter is our link with Buffon and Lamarck. You could ask Kilpatrick who asked him to write on PM. Strange that pathologists should be interested.

By the way on the ecology front. Matthew was complaining about

Dempster's second book.
Published in 1996

the extravagant use of fertilisers in the 1860s. Guano had been discovered and imported. Also his concern about the forests. The poor nature of nursery trees – Darwin takes up this point and acknowledges Matthew.

For the organisers. Robert Smith is not in the Chambers Nat. Biographical Dictionary. Is he in the Scottish! If not send a brief statement to Prof John Horden, Univ of Stirling.

Addendum – Ecology.

If we accept that ecology is the study of plants and animals in their environment, then we are back to one of Lamarck’s main concepts approved of by no less than Darwin. See the Historical Sketch enclosed. Then turn to the first page, chapter 1 of all editions of the Origin of Species and there is a sentence with ‘the conditions of life’. Enclosed.

Then turn to the Historical Sketch where Matthew is considered and you will find Darwin pointing out that Matthew stressed ‘the conditions of life’. Enclosed. Darwin is very odd about the conditions of life. The phrase occurs all over the Origin and yet he admitted to Professor Semper in 1881! (See the book page 148) that he had not given sufficient weight to ‘the conditions of life’. Look at 2nd paragraph. Was he denying his Lamarckian attachment[?] Darwin was a Covert Lamarckian! Use the Historical Sketch and Lamarck’s concepts and you will find them all in the Origin without any reference to Lamarck. Lamarck referenced once; Cuvier once

The Creator referenced on average 6 times. Citation analysis would award first place to the Creator!

No Creator in Lamarck or Matthew. Stress that because the Origin is supposed to be completely natural science.

See my book page 212 – 2nd para – conditions of life

This is not in the [my] book.

Darwin elsewhere said that he could not find much evidence for ‘the conditions of life’ but that recently more evidence was appearing. Lamarck and Cuvier seem to have had enough evidence before Darwin was born; Matthew in the 1820s saw enough evidence. Some Darwinist may come in with this point. It seems to me that Darwin was hiding his Lamarckism.

~~~~~~~~~~

Notes and Comments by Mike Sutton

Here we see evidence that Dempster made sure free copies of his self-published book were distributed by the Patrick Matthew Trust, which funded its production.

Most importantly we see also Dempster's analysis of where Matthew's work fits into the various breakthroughs in thinking made in academic development of the field of organic evolution and natural selection. 

Note that Matthew was first with the divergent ramifications of life and that Blyth built upon that only after Matthew and only after, as my original discovery reveals (Sutton 2014), Blyth's editor! Loudon reviewed Matthew's book in 1832 and mentioned the question of Matthew's originality on the question of the "origin of species" no less!. 

 The importance of the bombshell discovery of this Matthew -> Loudon -> Blyth -> Wallace -> Darwin route of possible knowledge contamination is completely lost on many.

Note also that Matthew's book was complete heresy because he excluded any notion of a creator in it - which probably explains, in part, why it was not cited much in the first half of the 19th century. This fact is dealt with at length in Nullius (Sutton 2014). It explains also why, pre-1858, it was banned by the public library of Perth in Scotland and why, pre-1858, a naturalist professor of an esteemed university failed to teach the observations in it for fear of pillory punishment. 

Matthew's (1831) outright mockery of Christianity in his book would, in part, explain why Darwin lied from 1860 onwards that no one had read Matthew's original ideas on natural selection. Perhaps Darwin was afraid of his ideas being proven to have come via knowledge contamination from those of an outright heretic? 

Jim Dempster's Handwritten Notes on Darwin's Sly Deceptions in the Origin of Species

Dempster red inks on the Origin of Species - reveals the truth of Darwin's wormy deceptions: https://t.co/VP18uvv2Rf pic.twitter.com/O8jZORyLrA

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) April 1, 2016

Dempster (1985) reasoned with a multitude of his own evidence that Patrick Matthew should be hailed as the true discoverer of natural selection, simply because he most certainly did more than merely enunciate it, he worked it out and published it in detail as a complex and fully comprehensive law of nature. Moreover, Matthew got it right and Darwin wrong when it came to comprehending the impact of geological disasters on species extinction and emergence. Yet, from the third edition of the Origin onwards, Darwin (1861), a follower of Lyell’s erroneous uniformitarianism, jumped at the chance to denigrate Matthew by slyly inferring that he was a (then to be fashionably ridiculed) catastrophist. The following is from Darwin's 1861 Third Edition of the Origin of Species (p. xv):

The differences of Mr. Matthew's view from mine are not of much importance: he seems to consider that the world was nearly depopulated at successive periods, and then re stocked; and he gives, as an alternative, that new forms may be generated “without the presence of any mould or germ of former aggregates,” I am not sure that I understand some passages; but it seems that he attributes much influence to the direct action of the conditions of life. He clearly saw however the full force of the principle of natural selection.'

Dempster (1996) made this part of Darwin's cleverly subtle muck slinging injustice abundantly clear, but if you can find a Darwinist, or any other biologist, admitting as much and citing Dempster then you've found one more than I have. In effect, Darwin was signifying Matthew as among all the outdated believers in the miracle of Noah's Ark! And yet Matthew believed in no such thing. Matthew simply explained natural selection in terms of what is today called 'Punctuated Equilibrium' – which is, then, essentially Matthew’s discovery. Punctuated Equilibrium is accepted science today. However, Dempster (1995; 2005) noted that its Darwinist purveyors sought to keep the originator of that theory buried in footnote oblivion. Rampino (2011) explains some of the detail.

Dempster wrote that there is no need to accuse Darwin of plagiarising the work of Patrick Matthew because it is already well established that he acted badly in not citing his influencers in the first edition and other editions of the Origin of Species (Dempster, 1983 p. 64):

‘Patrick Matthew and Robert Chambers carried out their great tasks single- handed. Without the help on the one hand of his great wealth and on the other of Hooker, Lyell, Lubbock, Blyth, Wallace and many others, it is doubtful whether Darwin, single-handed, could have avoided making a botch of his theory or even whether he could have, had the Origin published. Even so, in spite of all the outside help, he retreated more and more towards Lamarckism.

There is no need to charge Darwin with plagiarism. His scholarship and integrity were at fault in not providing all his references in the Origin: he had after 1859 another twenty years in which to do so. What one can say is that denigration of Patrick Matthew was unwarrantable and inexcusable.’

Darwinist muck-slinging began after Darwin capitulated to Matthew in the Gardener's Chronicle of 1860

The image below was kindly sent to me by Jim Dempster's daughter Soula Dempster. The red handwriting is her father's. He annotated a copy of the historical sketch in Darwin's Origin of Species, Dempster's copy of the sketch is from the 1872 edition but its the same as that fistpubihed in 1861 from the third edition of the Origin onwards:

Dempster's notes on Darwin's sly Deceptions in the Origin of Species 

Note where Dempster writes "½ sentence missing!". Dempster has spotted that Darwin slyly misled his readers that Matthew believed something, which the facts prove Matthew clearly did not. Note that Dempster writes: "Matthew rejects this in the missing part!"

Because Darwin slyy concealed the context and completeness of Matthew's work, I respectfully disagree with Dempster's view that there is no need to accuse of Darwin of plagiarism. I think that there most certainly is a need to directly name Darwin as a plagiariser, and to do so in no uncertain terms, because, by lying, wriggling, plagiarising  science fraud - by glory theft necessity after 1860 (see Sutton 2016)- Darwin showed only a half a sentence of Matthew's work in order to so deliberately mislead his readership into thinking Matthew simply believed that the population of life was somehow miraculously "re-stocked". 

What matthew actually wrote:

Page 383 of  Matthew (1831) 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture'

Note - most importantly - Matthew's entire first paragraph on page 383 of his book is one long sentence. The first eight words that darwin left out of his explanation of Matthew's original conception of natural selection are crucial to Darwin's devious dishonest portrayal of Matthew as believing only that some form of complex species creation occurred on Earth after a catastrophic extinction event. 

Matthew wrote: 

So what was the "above" that Darwin concealed in his dishonest portrayal? Amongst a great wealth of additional text, but immediately above page 383, -  it is this:

Matthew (1831) p. 381

Readers should note also that Dempster's red ink annotations note that it is very important how Matthew's ideas are different to those of Darwin "Oh yes they are!"  also that  Dempster notes that it is untrue "Not true" that Matthew's original conception of natural selection was contained in a book of an unrelated title and solely in the scattered pages of the book's appendix.  Those Darwinist myths are completely burst - with hard disconfirming evidence - in  my 2014 book "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret", which - in addition - contains a wealth of original and newly discovered hard and independently verifiable facts that overturn the old paradigm that no one known to Darwin or Wallace read Matthew's original ideas before each replicated them, without citing Matthew - and then excused that unscholarly behaviour by claiming (fallaciously) - and by outright proven lying in Darwin's case - that none read those ideas before 1860. My book is dedicated to Jim Dempster.

You can read more about the work and life of the pioneering surgeon and human organ transplant scientist Jim Dempster Here.

Jim Dempster

Christmas Day 1859: Is Darwin Drunk Before Dinner?

From Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret (Currently unavailable in full 600 page original e-book form, following the publishing house [Thinker Books, of Thinker Media] closing.  Volume 1 of the paperback is now out and on sale on Amazon and from all good bookshops - vols. 2 and 3 are forthcoming.) 

'Subsequent to his successful manipulation of Hooker and Lyell in 1858, to ensure that Wallace did not get his priority over him, the following year, and just weeks before defending his priority to Baden Powell in 1859, Darwin writes to Hooker on Christmas Day, 1859, to say that he has always strongly felt that no one should defend their priority (Darwin 1859b). Seemingly, this most weird letter is meant to be both appreciative and self-flattering that he manipulated Hooker and Lyell to do so on his behalf, even if that meant unethical conduct on their respective parts. We know that Darwin had a weirdly unethical mindset when it came to scientific priority, but in this case, one might wonder whether perhaps he had started just a tad too early on the mince pies, rum source, sherry and port, or perhaps he was using something stronger? Or perhaps there was simply something far more profoundly wrong with the moral wiring of his mind.'

Darwin was a serial liar who was in fact obsessed with slyly stealing priority from others for his own glorification.  Years earlier he started a prolific letter campaign to try to get Royal Society and British Association for Advancement of Science to re-write the rules on priority for discovery changed so that mere replicators like he could claim priority for the prior-published discoveries of lesser known scientists. Those independently verifiable facts are here.

Below, you can see the facts of how Darwin blatantly and clearly lied in order to plagiarise by glory theft Patrick Matthew's original ans prior published conception of macroevolution natural selection.

The peer reviewed facts of Charles Darwin's lies and independently verifiable evidence he committed plagiarism, to effectively claim independent discovery of Matthew's prior-published hypotheses of the process of macro evolution by natural slection, can now be read in learned journals:

1. Here
2. Here

3. Far more details, evidence and context can be found in 'Nullius in Verba': Here