States of Denial of the Obvious and Significant Facts: Several things the Darwin Fraud case Shares with the Savile and Boston Globe Catholic Priest Pedophile Cases

https://t.co/MlbmxgSSRm

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) January 22, 2016

What does the case of Sir Jimmy Savile (OBE)  have in common with that of Rolf Harris (CBE) and Charles Darwin (FRS)?

Stanley Cohen's (2001) 'States of Denial: Knowing about atrocities and suffering' explains how people deny the significance of sufficient evidence that something is happening or happened in the past. Cohen explains how people do this with regard to a range of things such as marital infidelity, alcoholism, terminal illness, child abuse and genocide.

'One common thread runs through the many different stories of denial: people, organizations, governments or whole societies are presented with information that is too disturbing, threatening or anomalous to be fully absorbed or openly acknowledged. The information is therefore somehow repressed, disavowed, pushed aside or reinterpreted. Or else the information 'registers' well enough, but its implications - cognitive, emotional or moral - are evaded, neutralized or rationalized away.'

Stanley Cohen (2001) States of Denial: Knowing about atrocities and suffering. p. 1.

Cohen (2001) explains that states of denial of the obvious and significant - yet unbearable - facts can take many forms:

• Disingenuous ‘canny unresponsiveness’
• ‘Psychotic negation of the obvious facts’
• ‘Lying to convince their listeners and reinforce their own denial of the real facts’
• ‘Negation by wishful thinking’
• ‘Evasive reassurance that the facts are not that serious’
• ‘Victim blaming’ – blaming the victim for their predicament.
• ‘Withdrawal of attention – deflecting the gaze’
• ‘Compartmentalization’.

Unsurprisingly, there are several shared features underlying the 'state of denial' in the Savile case, the Boston Globe's  Catholic priests paedophile case and the Darwin fraud case :

1. Sir Jimmy Savile OBE was a much loved and wealthy TV celebrity, raised a fortune for charities.He was considered 'broadcasting royalty' by the BBC and as a highly respected, knighted and decorated, 'pillar of society' by everyone else. The BBC held his talent in awe and treated him deferentially.
2. Charles Darwin (FRS), was considered in the 19th-century (being the grandson of the famous polymath and poet Erasmus Darwin FRS), as 'academic royalty' by the Royal Society. After his reports whilst on the HMS Beagle were read with enthusiasm by naturalists, his knowledge was held in awe and the very name "Darwin" was once again treated deferentially. Awarded the Royal Medal, Copley Medal and Wollaston Medal, he was considered a paragon of wealthy gentleman naturalist honesty and originality by everyone else. Harris was awarded the CBE and once spent considerable time with the Queen of England as he famously painted her portrait.
3. Catholic priests, in 20th century USA, and their wealthy church, were considered by many as being at the very top of the social hierarchy of honesty and caring integrity.
4. Both Savile and Harris were immensely popular and highly successful A-List 'celebrity' children's entertainers. Darwin was a celebrity A-list scientist. All three completely transgressed the boundaries of social and professional norms within the particular field in which they were held in such high regard. All Roman Catholic priests were entrusted by society to uphold the 'child protection' values of the Christian prophet Jesus of Nazareth. The 'real facts' of the the behaviour of paedophile priests, Savile's, Harris's and Darwin's behaviour is, therefore, anathema.
5. In what we might name the "Rifkin Imperative by Proxy": Savile boasted about being able to avoid trouble, and in describing his ability to do so gleefully described himself many times as being "tricky". Darwin gleefully described himself many times as being a "wriggler" to do the same. Harris - less obviously - may have been leaving similarly smug and self-delightful obscure clues to his predilections in his music. For example, in  hindsight his hit song "I want my mummy" is most disturbing. More research is needed, but I dare to hypothesise that we might call this song that celebrates and weirdly mocks and delights at the massive trauma felt by a poor lost child a case of the "Rifikin Imperative by Proxy".

But eventually someone is able to break the negative hallucination (not seeing what is obviously and significantly there) to convince the world of the facts that "The king has no clothes!" It takes time to get through the stonewalling of protective 'establishment' interests and public adoration - but the facts pound like a battering ram against their denials, canny indifference and blindsight. Eventually, the wall caves-in and facts then rush through. And after the breech is made, the public wants to know why it took so long. Who, they demand, is to blame?

This link will take you to the independently verifiable 'New Data'. This data proves that, for the past 155 years to the present time of writing, the same psychological 'state of denial' characteristics of the "majority view" are behind the failure to respond to the obvious and significant facts of Darwin's lying, plagiarizing, science fraud by glory theft of Patrick Matthew's prior-published conception of natural selection.

An explanation - with independently verifiable evidence - of how the psychological concept of 'denial' relates to how Darwin scholars have been in denial of the facts of Darwin's lies, told to conceal the wider facts pertinent to Darwin's (1858 and 1859) replication of Matthew's (1831) prior-published conception of natural selection, and more, can be read on the Patrick Matthew Website PatrickMatthew.com - specifically the States of Denial page.

Conclusion

Darwin scholars currently are in a state of denial of the obvious and significant fact that the publication record of what he knew and what he then wrote proves Charles Darwin was a self-serving liar about the prior readership of Matthew's ideas. Darwin lied about the prior readership of Matthew's original ideas, which he replicated without citing (Sutton 2105   ). Any Darwinist claiming there is an innocent interpretation for this behaviour - namely, that their namesake's published falsehoods were not meant to be taken literally - is offering an incongruous explanation, given the fact that for 155 years the literal interpretation of Darwin's claims by the world's leading Darwinists (here) is the basis of the 'majority view' paradigm that a steadfastly honest Darwin independently discovered Matthew's prior-published ideas.

Being in a state of denial of these facts is analogous, in my considered opinion, to denying that Sir Jimmy Savile deliberately forced his tongue into a child's mouth   . Moreover, it is analogous to cooking up a 'state of denial' defence scenario where Savile simply miss-kissed.

Anyone claiming that Charles Darwin was not a liar, in the teeth of the facts that he was, is surely in a state of denial of the unpalatable halitosis of Darwin's lies. On 1st February 2016, I left a comment to that effect on Dr Mike Weale's Patrick Matthew Project website (here   ).

Being in a state of denial of these particular facts is analogous, in my considered opinion, to denying that Sir Jimmy Savile deliberately forced his tongue into a child's mouth by claiming instead that it happened in good faith, despite the obvious deviance, dishonest and sexual gratification of the act. It is analogous to cooking up a dual 'state of denial' defence scenario where Savile simply miskissed, and where Darwin wrote falsehoods in good faith despite the deviance of his actions, dishonesty and resulting status as an immortal great orignal thinker and influencer in science.

Darwin scholars really ought to snap out of their 'state of denial' of the facts and deal with them like real - not pseudo - scholars. The facts can't be denied away. Nor should we try. Because it seems reasonable to hypothesise that societies that tolerate and fail to recognise any states of denial may be more likely to provide enabling environments for the worst atrocities committed by human beings.

There is, however a paradox. Denial may initially protect the individual, yet simultaneously contribute to their greatest future threat. This is the "Blindsight Paradox   ", identified by Stanley Cohen in 2001.

I wrote a blog on the blindsight phenomenon here.

You can find links to more blog posts etc on 'states of denial' on the relevant page of PatrickMatthew.com

Feel free to use the infomatic below in any way and anywhere you see fit:

This Prezi-show reveals the obvious and significant evidence 

that 100 per cent proves Darwin committed lying, plagiarising science fraud 

by glory theft of Matthew's prior-published conception of macro-evolution by natural selection

The Evolution of Knowledge in Science and the History of Ideas

Religion is the organisation of certain beliefs. Fundamental beliefs of any religion are not subject to change or challenge. They are fixed. Alternatively, science is meant to be belief-free organised scepticism. Immortal great thinkers and discoverers in science have written things, often long ago, that every new generation of scholar improves upon. The words and ideas of scientists, such as Charles Darwin, are not holy tenets. Scientists may be brilliant people, but they are not our gods. Each scientist is just one step in the evolution of knowledge that is greater than ourselves. The history of discovery of natural selection evolved in 2014, with the original discovery of the New Data (Sutton 2014), which proves that Darwin was wrong about the prior readership of the original conception of the full hypothesis of natural selection before 1858. Because, rather than none whatsoever, as Darwin wrote, seven naturalists in fact did read Patrick Matthew's prior published conception of macroevolution by natural selection. And three of their number played major roles at the epicentre of influence and facilitation of the work of Darwin and Wallace on that topic pre-1858.

Visit the 'States of Denial' page on PatrickMatthew.com to see how, for the past 155 years, evolutionary biologists and other 'expert' Darwin scholars, have exhibited classic 'states of denial' behaviour to deny the obvious and significant facts of Darwin's lies about Matthew and and who really did read his book before Darwin and Wallace replicated the original ideas in it and then defended themselves by claiming, fallaciously, that none had read those ideas before their supposedly independent replications.

Visit PatrickMatthew.com for all the 'New Data' in the history of discovery of natural selection - the unifying theory of biology

Feel free to use the infomatic below anywhere you see fit.

When Blogging Splits the Universe

Blog Post Begins

Trumpet from the rooftopsPublic Domain

The Divergent Ramifications of Your Own Actions!

In quantum physics, observations at the sub atomic level prove that matter operates according to natural laws that do not apply for larger objects. For example, in our own world in our own universe, much as we might wish it was the case, it is impossible for any of us to be in more than one place at once. However, at the sub-atomic level,things become 'spooky' because sub-atomic particles exist as both particle and wave. A wave can be in more than one place at a time, and we have those same spooky little particles inside us.

As Josh Clark neatly explains: http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/parallel-universe2.htm   

Trumpet from the rooftopsPublic Domain

At the quantum level, matter can exist as both particles and waves

‘As unsettling as it may sound, Everett's Many-Worlds interpretation has implications beyond the quantum level. If an action has more than one possible outcome, then -- if Everett's theory is correct -- the universe splits when that action is taken. This holds true even when a person chooses not to take an action.

This means that if you have ever found yourself in a situation where death was a possible outcome, then in a universe parallel to ours, you are dead. This is just one reason that some find the Many-Worlds interpretation disturbing.’

This might sound like whacked-out pseudo-science to you, but I can assure you that many of the t   op minds in the world    of physics think it currently the best theoretical explanation for what scientists are observing.

Many World's Theory is different to the Classic Copenhagen Interpretation

Sean Carroll    explains the difference:

'The situation in quantum mechanics is superficially entirely different. Think of Schrödinger’s Cat. Quantum mechanics describes reality in terms of wave functions, which assign numbers (amplitudes) to all the various possibilities of what we can see when we make an observation. The cat is neither alive nor dead; it is in a superposition of alive + dead. At least, until we observe it. In the simplistic Copenhagen interpretation, at the moment of observation the wave function “collapses” onto one actual possibility. We see either an alive cat or a dead cat; the other possibility has simply ceased to exist. In the Many Worlds or Everett interpretation, both possibilities continue to exist, but “we” (the macroscopic observers) are split into two, one that observes a live cat and one that observes a dead one. There are now two of us, both equally real, never to come back into contact.'

If it's true, then just how spooky is that?

Why a splitting universe is both unsettling and quite appealing

Last week I was out for a 6 mile run. On the last ½ mile, I found the pavement was completely blocked by two large ladies in their 70’s who were ambling along with their backs to me. Both ladies were deep in conversation. Not wanting to run up behind them and scare them out of their wits by stage-whispering "excuse me", I calculated that for the 1-2 seconds it would take to get around them it would be OK to step out into the bus lane, without needing to look over my shoulder, since I could not hear a bus coming and running one way whilst overtaking ladies and looking backwards is rather difficult.

Something made me look over my shoulder at the very last instant – so last in fact that I lost my balance and trod one foot into the curb of the bus lane. At that very split-second a big green bus shot past me and missed my foot by no more than a couple of inches - our bus lanes being so narrow and buses so wide.

Had a synapse in my brain not fired one way rather than the other I’d have been “obliviated” for sure. Yet in a parallel world, proximal to our own and in our own universe, but inaccessible, unmeasurable and invisible to us, if the theory is right, I never looked over my shoulder. In that world I died under a bus! And so you my friend have a double in that world who is not reading these very words!

This brings me to a personally appealing feature of Everett’s Many Worlds interpretation of quantum physics.

It is a little known fact that Charles Darwin, writing on the subject of naming discoveries, argued with Hugh Strickland in a desperate attempt to change the rules of scientific priority for discovery so that lesser known first discoverers would lose their priority to better known naturalists such as Darwin. In sum, Strickland and Darwin argued over the attribution of 'priority' regarding who should have the right to be attributed with a discovery. Strickland thought it should go to the person who first discovered and named something. Darwin thought it should go to the more senior naturalist if they did more important work on the discovery.

The letter that Darwin (1849) wrote on the subject is lost to the sands of time. However, his correspondent, Strickland, kept a record of exactly what Darwin proposed, which includes the following[1]:

“… if the first description was originally imperfect, & had been superseded by any better description, it wd perhaps be better to omit all reference to it, for the sooner such an author's name was buried in oblivion the better”[2]

Trumpet from the rooftopsPublic Domain

Hugh Strickland thwarted Darwin's Unethical and Selfish Priority Plans

Strickland would have none of it and so essentially thwarted Darwin’s protracted scheming selfish ambitions in this regard. For example, in his letter of the 31st January 1849, Strickland - the more senior scientist - lectured Darwin on his ethical scientific responsibilities as a synthesiser, which is certainly a description of Darwin that most would agree with:

‘ I say that the compilers of monographs or of systematic works are bound in justice to search out the cognate labours of others in ever possible direction, and where they have (even unavoidably) overlooked other persons' writings, they must still pay the penalty by having their nomenclature superseded in favour of a prior one. Scientific natural history has now become as much a matter of literary research as of physical observation. I have had this forcibly brought home to me last autumn, when looking through the fine collection of foreign periodicals in the Bodleian Library, when I was astonished at the mass of original memoirs on zoology and other sciences which seem never to have made their way beyond the scientific but limited coterie in whose periodical they are printed. Authors should be encouraged to publish matters of science in standard and accessible periodicals (& the Association code has a clause ([SYMBOL]D) to that effect, still we cannot prevent them from doing otherwise, and we must (as the law does with libels) regard the act of printing as tantamount to publication, and deal out equal justice accordingly.’

Unfortunately for the history of biology, Strickland’s brain – at least in our world – failed to tell him to look over his shoulder in a dangerous situation. Because Strickland died in 1853, six years before the publication of Darwin's (1859) Origin of Species , when he is said to have accidentally stepped into the path of one train in order to avoid another.

Yet if the Many World's Theory is true, in a parallel world, Strickland looked over his shoulder in 1853 – saw the train coming – and lived to a ripe old age.

Accordingly, and according to quantum physics experts, in a parallel world in our universe Patrick Matthew - instead of Charles Darwin - is now most definitely on the back of the British £10 note!

Public Domain

Patrick Matthew (1831) was the first to fully explain natural selection as new species branching from a common ancestor by way of nature selecting varieties that were best circumstance suited. He even uniquely called it: 'the natural process of selection'. A term Darwin (1859) would uniquely four word shuffle into 'process of natural selection'.

In that parallel world where Strickland looked and lived, when Darwin fully admitted in an 1860 letter of reply to Matthew in the Gardener’s Chronicle that Patrick Matthew had in 1831 published the full and complete hypothesis of natural selection, Strickland - true to form - made sure that Matthew was hailed and celebrated thereafter as the immortal great thinker of science who first discovered natural selection and so had full priority over Darwin. In that universe it is Patrick Matthew’s head – not Darwin’s – that currently adorns the back of the British £10 note. Imagine that!

Despite Darwin’s fallacious protestations in 1860 that no naturalist known to him had read it, we know today (in our world at least) that at least seven naturalists did in fact read Matthew’s bombshell ideas in his  book of 1831 because they cited it. Moreover, three of those seven - well known to Darwin and his best friends - played key roles at the very epicentre of influence on the pre-1858 work of Darwin and Wallace on evolution

QUANTUM SALES PITCH FOR THE AUTHOR'S OWN BOMBSHELL BOOK.

BEWARE: READING THE TEXT BELOW MAY SPLIT THE UNIVERSE!

If you would like to read a great deal more about Strickland, Darwin - and those who big data has newly revealed cited Matthew's 1831 book - naturalists and others who Darwin actually knew well – then you could do worse than read my book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret.  On which note, you may or may not be pleased to know that there is absolutely nothing at all in it on quantum physics and parallel worlds. Well, not in this world anyway.

Go on now, split the universe. You know it makes sense.

Trumpet from the rooftopsPublic Domain

Darwin merely replicated Matthew's 'divergent ramification' explanation of how species change and branch to evolve from a common ancestor

Remember, according to Many Worlds Theory, if you don't buy my e-book then YOU personally just split the universe, which means that now your double, in another world, just clicked here. Consequently, your double will soon know a whole lot more than YOU about the real origin of The Origin of Species. No pressure. Just click here to split the universe again, or not - just as the case may be.

[1] The reference for this is in footnote no 6 of Darwin’s letter to Strickland (29th January 1849) on the Darwin Correspondence Project: http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-1215   
[2] Coincidentally, or perhaps not, as the case may be, the popular Victorian phrase ‘buried in oblivion’ was used in the same year in an article about Erasamus Darwin’s writing (Harris 1848) : ‘I trust however that these remarks may stimulate inquiry in relation to principles which every day practice acknowledges as true but which in the writings of the day appear to be almost buried in oblivion.’

Leave a Comment

AllAuthor's FavoritesThinker Recommended

There are currently no comments.

Return to Main Blog Page

---

Naughty Biologist > No Royal Society Darwin Medal!

In an earlier blog post, I 100 per cent proved the fact that the world's leading Darwinists had done no more than blindly parrot Darwin's easily discoverable and significant lies about Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior-published discovery of natural selection.

The telling question here is:  Could anyone writing the truth about Darwin's lies could ever win a Darwin medal from the Royal Society? 

I think that Stanley Cohen's (2001, pp. 66-67) excellent book 'States of Denial' explains why the

Surrounded and influenced
 before 1858,
by naturalists who did read
and cite Matthew's
prior-published conception
of natural selection,
Darwin claimed
to have immaculately
 conceived it!
He then wrote four fallacies
about Matthew and his book
to support his claim.

answer to my question is likely to be no - and why I for one will never be awarded the Darwin Medal for writing the uncomfortable disconfirming evidence for Darwin's claim to have independently conceived  natural selection:

'Codes of silence  - whether in the Mafia, large corporations, army, church, police or professional groups - range from strict, formal and enforced to barely conscious collusive denials. Webs of complicity may draw innocent observers into protecting the worst of perpetrators, denying the gravity of their actions or keeping silent about matters that threaten the group's conception of itself.'

And:

'Organizations work by what Janov termed 'groupthink': a collective mind-set that protects illusions from uncomfortable truths and disconcerting information.'

Feel free to disseminate the following informatics jpeg on this topic anywhere you see fit:

Evolutionary biologists will never be awarded the Royal Society Darwin Medal for writing the

The Darwin Medal

following truths about the history of discovery of natural selection:

Darwin's four fallacies about Matthew and his book: Blindly parroted by credulous Darwin scholars for 155 years as excuses for Darwin and Wallace not citing it.

1. The lie that Matthew buried all his ideas on natural selection in the appendix of his book. (See The Appendix Myth).

2. The lie that no naturalists / no one at all read Matthew's original ideas on natural selection before 1860. (See the 100 per cent disconfirming proof).

3. The fallacy that Matthew was merely an obscure writer on forest trees. Besides the evidence presented in the previous blog post to the one you are currently reading, which reveals Matthew's writing was recommended to Captain Fitzroy of the HMS Beagle, see Matthew's extensive publications on the Patrick Matthew Project website). By way of just one further example (among many others to be found in my (2014) book Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret)  see the blog post where it is revealed that Matthew's (1831) book was prominently advertised and then cited in the Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1842 (the very year Darwin claimed to have first penned his first private essay on natural selection).

4. The fallacy that a book entitled 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture' was too inappropriate and obscure to contain the first publication of the unifying theory of biology. (Read about the huge importance attributed by the Royal Society to Evelyn's classic book on the exact same theme)

Naughty Biologist > No Royal Society Darwin Medal! https://t.co/FJiFveVOu0 pic.twitter.com/E3mpQ1sFHo

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) January 20, 2016

The Day the Supposedly Obscure Writer, Patrick Matthew's Book "Emigration Fields" was Recommended Reading Material for Captain Fitzroy of the Beagle. No less!

The Year 1844. The publication: 

The New Zealand Journal - Volume 4 - Page 98. 

(See red arrow at bottom of the second image below)

Charles Darwin - whilst penning a deliberate lie to a famous French biologist was later to refer to Matthew as merely an obscure writer on forest trees:

Letter from Darwin to Quatrefages de Bréau in his letter of April 25, 1861 Darwin lied:

"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."

Context of Darwin's lie (here) .

The HMS Beagle: Captained by Ritzroy. The famous ship that took Darwin to the
Galapagos islands, which - contrary to the Finches Beaks Myth - he left still
believing a divine creator was responsible for the origin of species.

Seventeen years before Darwin portrayed Matthew as an obscure writer and in the same year Darwin claimed to have written a mere private essay on natural selection, Patrick Matthew's second book is recommended in the press to none other than the man for whom Charles Darwin was,employed to be expedition geologist and table companion for Captain Robert Fitzroy of the HMS Beagle.

Matthew's (1839) book was recommended to Fitzroy following news of his appointment as Governor of New Zealand.

In his (1839) book 'Emigration Fields' - and contrary to Darwinist mythology that he never developed his ideas on natural selection after is origination of them 1831 - Matthew, in actual fact, took his original ideas on natural selection, and the importance of those ideas for propagating naval timber, and for addressing the artificial selection problems caused in human society, forward for the human species. Matthew did this in his 1839 book, in particular for the Anglo Saxon variety of human known generally as British. On the opening pages of  his book Emigration fields, we see Matthew's (1831) On Naval Timber and Arboriculture was promoted. 

Darwin labelled Matthew an obscure writer on Forest Trees as jut one part of the classic response process of those in a 'state of denial' of the uncomfortable facts. It's known as 'victim blaming'. That move was simply another of several sly Darwin-penned fallacies that were written to put others off the scent of the truth.

Darwin's obscure writer on forest trees excuse, was greatly aided and abetted by the fallacies written by the botanist John Lindley (best friend of the father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker), which for 13 years concealed the fact that Patrick Matthew and his son John were the first to bring the greatly admired giant redwood tree seeds into Britain and propagate the trees in Scotland. Thanks to the fallacy spreading of the immensely powerfully connected Professor Lindley, he and Lobb received adoring credit by naturalists until the myth was bust by publication of the facts - but only a full year after Lindley's death in 1865. Moreover, I uniquely and originally discovered in January 2016 that John Matthew named the trees Wellingtonia six months before Lindley is officially accredited with the botanical naming. Furthermore, I discovered that Lindley was in possession of an abstract of a letter (and possibly the whole letter) that disproved his and Lobb's fallacious claim to Matthew's glory as least six months after he made it, but possibly six months before!

In 1860, Charles Darwin created four fallacies about Matthew. Darwin scholars turned them into myths by blindly parroting those fallacies as the gospel truth. They parroted them as though they represent valid reasons why Darwin replicated Matthew's original ideas, terminology and explanatory examples, 27 years after Matthew's book was published, without citing their original published source.

Darwin claimed Matthew had no influence on him or anyone else. He supported that claim by writing the fallacy that no one read Matthew's ideas before 1860. In reality, influential naturalists around Darwin, who influenced him on the topic of organic evolution, either read Matthew's book and cited it (Chambers), or else read and cited it before then editing the work of those who influenced Darwin and Alfred Wallace (Selby and Loudon).

Darwin's four fallacies about Matthew and his book: Blindly parroted by credulous Darwin scholars for 155 years as excuses for Darwin and Wallace not citing it.

1. The lie that Matthew buried all his ideas on natural selection in the appendix of his book. (See The Appendix Myth)
2. The lie that no naturalists / no one at all read Matthew's original ideas on natural selection before 1860. (See the 100 per cent disconfirming proof).
3. The fallacy that Matthew was merely an obscure writer on forest trees. (Besides the evidence presented in the blog post you are currently reading, see Matthew's extensive publications on the Patrick Matthew Project website). By way of just one further example see the blog post where it is revealed that Matthew's book was prominently advertised and then cited in the Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1842 (the very year Darwin claimed to have first penned his first private essay on natural selection). The discovery of this significant evidence is originally in  Nullius (Sutton 2014): 'In the same year that Darwin finished his first unpublished essay on natural selection, Black [Matthew's Scottish publisher] ensured that NTA [Naval Timber and Arboriculture] was advertised across three quarters of an opening page in the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1842), with considerable mention made of Matthew's unique ideas on the issue of species and variety'. See image below of that block advertisement.
4. The fallacy that a book entitled 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture' was too inappropriate and obscure to contain the first publication of the unifying theory of biology. (Read about the huge importance attributed by the Royal Society to Evelyn's classic book on the exact same theme).

Page 7 of  the The Encyclopaedia Britannica, Or Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, Volume 4.1842

The first paragraph of the advertisement for Matthew's book, on page 7, in Volume 4. in the hugely influential (see: Holmes, R. p. 180 in Bryson's "Seeing Further")  and widely read Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1842 reads:

'In embracing the Philosophy of Plants, the interesting subject of Species and Variety is considered - the principle of the natural location of vegetables is distinctly shewn, - the principle also which in the untouched wild "keeps unsteady nature to her law" inducing conformity in species and preventing deterioration of breed, is explained, - and the causes of the variation and deterioration of cultivated forest-trees pointed out.'

The above plain and significant fact raises the telling question: "How many obscure writers on forest trees have their books on the topic advertised in the world famous and immensely popular Encyclopaedia Britannica? Moreover, the text above reveals also exactly how successfully alluring this advert would, surely, most likely, have been to anyone interested on the heretical topic of the 'origin of species'.

Matthew's original artificial versus natural selection explanatory analogy of differences regarding what the above advert says about the 'causes of the variation and deterioration of forest-trees' was replicated by Darwin in a private essay, which he said was written in 1844 (two years after the above advert appeared in the bound edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica). 

Significantly, the science historian and anthropologist Professor Loren Eiseley was the first to spot Darwin's replication (though, Eiseley knew nothing of the orignal 2014 discovery of the above advert, which I made with BigData research techniques):

Eiseley (1979): "Matthew wrote   ,

'Man's interference, by preventing this natural process of selection among plants, independent of the wider range of circumstances to which he introduces them, has increased the differences in varieties particularly in the more domesticated kinds...'

"In his unpublished essay of 1844,

Darwin wrote, 'In the case of forest trees raised in nurseries, which vary more than the same trees do in their aboriginal forests, the cause would seem to lie in their not having to struggle against other trees and weeds, which in their natural state doubtless would limit the conditions of their existence…"

You can read more on Darwin's and Wallace's replications of Matthew's (1831) original explanatory analogy of differences here. 

Notably, the agricultural scientist, Professor David Low (FRSE) of the University of Edinburgh, a former Perth Academy schoolmate of Matthew, replicated Matthew's analogy in his book of 1844. Low was also apparently first to be second in the literature, in two different publications, with two apparently unique Matthew phrases. (see Sutton 2104). Low and Darwin met. And in 1857 (two years before the publication of the Origin of Species) Darwin recommended Low's book to the Royal Society on the grounds of its importance on the topic of 'domestic variation of species' no less! I strongly suspect (although I cannot prove it) that David Low is the unnamed naturalist from an esteemed university (who read, but feared pillory punishment were he to teach the ideas in his book), that Matthew told Darwin about in his second priority claiming letter in the Gardener's Chronicle of 1860. Writing the opposite to the facts conveyed directly from Matthew in those two letters, Darwin went on to lie that no one had read Matthew's original ideas before Matthew told Darwin about them in 1860. The world's leading Darwin scholars then proceeded to blindly parrot that lie as a veracious explanation for why Darwin would not have read Matthew's prior-published conception of natural selection.

No wonder Perth public library in Scotland banned Matthew's book (See Matthew 1860). One can only wonder at how many requests were made to borrow Matthew's heretical book after this advert appeared. And to explain, ad nauseam, to blindsightedly biased Darwin scholars, who uniquely specialise in 'context free' history only when it comes to their mere un-evidenced Darwin-sided beliefs on the Matthew priority and influence on Darwin and Wallace  issue - naturalists were not going to write much about the orignal heretical conception of natural selection in Matthew's 1831 book - and they were certainly not going to teach them - in the first half of the 19th century - for fear of pillory punishment. For the historical evidence of that fact see Matthew's 1860 published letter of explanation of this very obvious and significant contextual reality in his reply to  Darwin's proven lie that no naturalist had read Matthew's book pre-1860.

Finally, and significantly, the above advert had in fact been in the published literature since 1832 in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Because, as Dr Mike Weale usefully points out on his Patrick Matthew Project website: 

• 'Note that although the official publication date for the 7th Edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica was 1842, in reality it was published in instalments starting in 1827.  Volume 4 was available in bound form in 1832, which explains why all the books in the publishers’ advertising insert (“lately published by Adam Black, Edinburgh, and Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green, London“) are from 1831-2 (for example, Memoirs of the Wernerian Natural History Society, Vol 6).  Coincidentally, Volume 21 (the last volume, which really was published in 1842) contains a citation of Matthew’s book in its article on “Timber”.  The advert is very similar to the Edinburgh Literary Journal (1831) advert, except the quotes from reviews have been updated. Even the aggressively negative review from the Edinburgh Literary Journal is quoted as a “Sample of Venom”, perhaps to pique the reader’s interest!''