Home » Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

PMP

Comments section below. Please respect PMP house rules and conduct all exchanges with civility.


922 Comments

  1. Dysology says:

    NEWS UPDATE -plot number correction – and pictures to follow:

    Patrick Matthew of Gourdiehill buried 15 June 1874 in lair no. 184 in Errol burying ground, say Perth & Kinross Council (Burial Services).

    Headstone is for brickworks owner Alexander Fraser died 1924 & buried in same lair

    Like

    • mikeweale says:

      Great to know finally where Patrick Matthew lies buried. Congratulations to Peter Symon for getting to the bottom of this!

      Regarding the link to Alexander Fraser, I have a newspaper article from 1907 detailing the bequests of Charles Anderson which includes money to both the Matthew family and to the “children of Mrs Fraser, Blairgowrie”. Anderson’s will is discussed on pp.113-119 of Wulf Gerdt’s “Matthew Saga”.

      Like

      • Dr. sutton…
        I’m Already familiar with this information about the Anderson connections…if this is the contacts that you are referencing in the Peter Symon revelation of P.M.s Grave.

        Like

      • Dysology says:

        You obviously know far more than I on the matter Howard.

        The discovery of who and why others are buried above Matthew in the same grave affirms your prior stated view that it is important that Wulf Gerdt’s volumes are translated (both of them) and placed in the public domain. The family have given us permission and rights to do so. We now need a reliable translator and funds for that work.

        If we can trace any of the stone from Matthew’s demolished house at Gourdie Hill. that would make (I think) a fitting material for a memorial headstone of horizontal stone and footstone on his grave.

        Like

      • Dr. Sutton I’m a bit late in reading your note describing your sudden realization that the De Matthew Saga books definitely need to be translated. I’m glad that you are in response like in a old joke where time goes by and then suddenly you get the punch line. But now I think you realize just how much trust I put in you as well…if you remember our previous discussion..

        Like

  2. Dysology says:

    Time to organize a fitting memorial that can survive the erosive wind and rain.

    Like

  3. Dr. Sutton,
    I need to know a little more about Peter Symon….I tried to leave a comment twice about this information on your site where you posted his information but they apparently didn’t get added. First I would like to have him explain who the others are that are buried in the same grave. He mentions Patrick Matthew’s Aunt…but doesn’t give any detail…obviously because it’s only a brief note on twiter. I am assuming based on logic that it is his Aunt… Euphemia Duncan Nicol the sister of his mother Agnes Duncan and the mother of Patrick’s wife Christian Nicol. This is important… for it is through the Duncan Sisters that the Estate of Gourdiehill is tied to the entire story and the connection to probably one of the biggest influences in the life of Patrick Matthew and who more than likely inspired his youthful interest in the building of ships…the famous relative… Admiral Adam Duncan….as well as the Duncan/Hays family from which the family of the two sisters inherited Gourdiehill from in the first place

    The second issue that Peter Symon brings up is a great uncle whom he doesn’t mention who passed on an old article either about or written by Errol Jones. I’m Curious…Who is this Great Uncle and what are his ties to the Patrick Matthew story? Is he a relative of P. M.?

    You were going to send me some information on some further contacts for genealogical purposes…and even though you referenced a site I did not see any such references

    Howard Minnick

    Like

    • Dysology says:

      Howard

      The site is in control of what gets added. I can only assume they want you to verify your email. They usually send people who are not members of the site something like that (I’m told).

      Absolutely Everything Peter emailed me is on the Best Thinking blog post on this topic Howard. Here: https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=22915

      I know no more than that. I asked Peter if I could have his permission to send you his email address – so that you might correspond. He never replied.

      The Scottish press have been informed and a journalist emailed me very late last night to say he would read the blog and see if it was “newsworthy”.

      Like

  4. Dysology says:

    Mike – evidence the social reformer Thomas Attwood read Emigration Fields: – and a copy then (in the public domain) of Matthew’s handwriting to boot!

    https://www.vialibri.net/552display_i/year_1839_0_860960.html

    Like

  5. Dysology says:

    Blog on Matthew’s burial plot now updated with a photocopy of the written record (very kindly supplied by Peter Symon) to verify Peter Symon’s important cultural discovery: https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=22915

    Like

  6. Peter Symon says:

    I can confirm Mrs P Matthew, Patrick’s wife, is seemingly listed as buried in the same plot as her husband, whom she predeceased. My apologies for this oversight when I posted my somewhat breathless original posts. I have not seen the register, only the photocopy of it, but trust that the transcription is accurate. Also, I did reply to Mr Minnick, who has subsequently kindly sent me several interesting emails. Matthew’s grave is very close to that of the solicitor, farmer and local historian, Lawrence Melville, whose work, “Errol: Its Legends, Lands and People” (1935) contains some mention of Matthew. Finally, I understand that the Gourdiehill estate was developed for housing by the late Mr Philip Redford several years ago. Thank you for your kind comments on the information I was able to share about Patrick Matthew’s grave.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Dysology says:

    Mike

    I would be most grateful if you could now, please, update your “Matthew’s Influence” on this site page to provide a link to the page on Patrickmatthew.com “Matthew’s Influence: Sutton’s Position Paper” that sets out exactly what I have uniquely discovered regarding who in fact did read Matthew’s (1831) book before Darwin and Wallace replicated its unique ideas and what other related information I also uniquely discovered.

    This dreadful staking-out of unique bragging rights behavior is of course unfortunately necessary since Richard Dawkins and many other biologists insist that originators must “trumpet” their unique discoveries “from the rooftops” or else they will be deemed not to have appreciated the significance of what they found if others take those ideas forward and claim to have “independently discovered them” .The link is here:
    http://patrickmatthew.com/sutton%27s%20position%20paper.html

    Very many thanks.

    Like

  8. Dysology says:

    Some more “hard to categorise” information about Patrick Matthew’s family, Scone Palace and the Earl of Mansfield, and a book on the topic of the errors of Thomas Pain: https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=22832

    Like

    • mikeweale says:

      Interesting stuff Mike. I’d be interested to learn more. In the “Subscriber’s list”, do we know why the Matthew family is listed under “Mr Thomas Martin, Edinburgh”, and do we know the relationship of these Matthews to each other?

      Like

      • Dysology says:

        Hi Mike

        I’m afraid I have no idea. Genealogy is something i studiously avoid lest I get embroiled in another detective case that takes over 😉 . By the way, The Carse of Gowrie Group got back to me about Matthew’s grave site. I’ll email on the details. Hopefully things are bout to shift up-a gear locally. I offered to come up and address the locals on Matthew.

        Like

    • Now Boy’s…let’s not forget that Thomas Paine was a great American Patriot …OK !!!

      Like

      • mikeweale says:

        One thing is clear, Howard – this book by Robert Thomas is *not* the reason why P.M. joined the Chartists! Or if it was, it was only because it is so egregiously reactionary that it prompted P.M. to take up diametrically opposite views when he was older!

        To take one example, Letter XXI in the book by Robert Thomas is entitled “Universal Suffrage contrary to Common Sense”.
        https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Bh8FAAAAQAAJ&pg=174#v=onepage&q&f=false

        So fear not – P.M. followed the philosophy of Thomas Paine more than he ever did that of Robert Thomas.

        Like

      • Dysology says:

        Mike – I agree.

        What is interesting in a wider historical sense is that Erasmus Darwin (Charles Darwin’s grandfather) was one of three founding members of the Derby Society for Political information, which was set up in the wake of Thomas Pain’s “The Rights of Man”.

        Erasmus very narrowly escaped prosecution for seditious libel in 1793. The Derby Mercury was tried for that very offence by jury for printing the manifesto of the Derby Society – one of its demands being full adult male suffrage, The jury found that the law had been broken but with no malicious intent and were then forced by the judge to deliver a more sensible verdict. They refused and simply found the paper not guilty of what it had obviously done. The reluctance of the jury to enforce the law meant Erasmus escaped trial. For all the details – have a look at chapter 38 of Jenny Uglow’s excellent book “The Lunar Men.”

        What is interesting to me is that Charles Darwin and his friends were cut from a different political cloth to Erasmus Darwin. They were all very anti-Chartism (anti- universal suffrage for men). They despised the Chartists – even drilling militia to tackle them. We see this in the letters of Charles Darwin, John Lindsay, Robert Chambers, Prideaux Selby, Joseph Hooker and Richard Owen.

        I bet Erasmus would have cited Matthew’s 1831 book and championed his beliefs. Problem is he died in 1802 – 29 years before 1831.

        .

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        Thanks Mike – very interesting stuff about Erasmus Darwin!

        I’ve been looking for some quotes from Charles Darwin regarding his views on Chartism but I can’t find any – could you provide some pointers?

        Like

      • Dysology says:

        I’d recommend Desmond and Moore – not for his views but on his fears and frustrations as expressed diary entries regarding (a) Marshal Law being imposed following fears of Chartist violence whilst he was at the Brtish Society meeting and other accounts of he and his family staying locked inside the house in Gower Street during Chartist protests of 1842 before the troops were sent in to disperse them after several days. Shortly after it is widely claimed Darwin left to move to Bromley for that reason. Visti it here and search within it on “chartist” “chartists” “chartism” https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Did882VhXFwC&pg=PT414&lpg=PT414&dq=darwin+and+the+chartists&source=bl&ots=z58mRWRDaH&sig=vokWT9LShncRYb1TRZaMjeAvd1c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAmoVChMIoeKMkJGUxgIV8QfbCh1hsQDH#v=onepage&q=darwin%20and%20the%20chartists&f=false

        On Darwin in Birmingham and Carlyle’s pamphlet – a useful quick source: http://nineteenthcenturybritain.blogspot.co.uk/2009/02/chartists.html

        From what is in his biography – Darwin clearly never liked the Chartist Thomas Carlyle: http://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/the-autobiography-of-charles-darwin/ebook-page-18.asp

        What is alluded to in Desmond and Moore is that Darwin had become a landowning landlord (he bought large tracts in Leicestershire. He was now a country squire and revelled in it. Hardly a Chartist sympathiser then. And it is an explanation, constructed by the authors, that Darwin feared being labelled a “fifth columnist” is his work on species was used to hold him into account.

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        Thanks Mike! I’ve also come across a quote from Emma Wedgewood, from shortly after she married Charles – on reading Thomas Carlyle’s Chartism pamphlet, she declared it “full of compassion and good feeling, but utterly unreasonable”. Not sure if there’s anything directly from Charles, but the website I got this quote from suggests a similarity of their two views:
        http://users.adam.com.au/bstett/SkepticsDarwinsRevolution130.html

        Wallace was more of a social reformer – I wonder what he thought of the Chartists? A bit before his time, perhaps?

        Like

      • Dysology says:

        I think the closest we will get to know of Darwin’s views on Chartism are going to be what he wrote about Carlyle (very little) and his later (implied by Desmond and Moore) fear of being vilflied by Chartists as a large tract landowning country squire:

        This might help: http://www.righthandlefthand.com/html/notes10.htm :

        “A few lines after describing reading Carlyle’s Chartism, (LeQuesne, 1982 p.57), Emma Darwin mentions that “The baby [William, met already in chapter 7] performed his first smile today, a great event…”. Carlyle’s essay on ‘Chartism’ is still in print (Shelston, 1971).

        There was clearly some ambivalence in Charles Darwin’s own views on Carlyle, since in February 1838 in a letter to Emma he had said that “I feel particularly well towards him”, and in January 1839 that “Carlyle is the best worth listening to of any man I know”. Forty years later he took the opportunity to abuse Carlyle in his Autobiography (Darwin & Huxley, 1974 pp 66-7):

        “Carlyle sneered at almost everyone: one day in my house, he called Grote’s History ‘a fetid quagmire, with nothing spiritual about it’. I always thought until his Reminiscences appeared, that his sneers were partly jokes, but this now seems rather doubtful. His expression was that of a depressed, almost despondent, yet benevolent man; and it is notorious how heartily he laughed. … His mind seemed to me a very narrow one; even if all branches of science, which he despised, are excluded. … As far as I could judge, I never met a man with a mind so ill adapted for scientific research.”

        Even Carlyle’s biographer, Froude, said that the ‘Occasional discourse on the Nigger Question’ of 1849 gave ‘universal offence’. Darwin in his Autobiography put it simply: “his views about slavery were revolting”.”

        Like

  9. Dysology says:

    This may be of interest regarding what appears to be significant confirmatory evidence. by way of indepenendt triangulation, for my First to be Second (F2b2) Hypothesis regarding those who were apparently first (pre-1858) to replicate apparently unique 1831 Matthewisms.

    ‘Through Darwin’s Wormhole with Milton Wainwright: The F2b2 Hypothesis: Important Post-Hoc Discovery of Prior Confirmatory Evidence from Professor Milton Wainwright’s Research.’ : https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=22956

    Like

  10. Dysology says:

    Well it was only a matter of time. The creationists have now fully latched onto the “New Data”. All I can say is “Let’s have a debate” http://crev.info/2015/04/darwin-plagiarized-patrick-matthew/ Because this is only going to get bigger. As it should. For the sake of science, reason and veracity.

    Like

    • mikeweale says:

      As you say, Mike, it was only a matter of time. The interesting thing is how well written and well researched the stuff in black text is, and then how vacuous and nonsensical the stuff in green text at the end is – it really is a blog of two halves!

      Like

      • Dysology says:

        Agreed Mike. The author of the piece does appear – at least by what is not written – to fail to grasp the significance of insensible nature (through natural selection) responding to “random” (an arguably subjective term in the case of geological and meteorological events) “events” as being the best scientific explanation for divergence of “types” within species and the emergence of new and the extinction of species and things like residual organs and limbs in species such as whales and slowworms and humans – and evolving viruses (such as the AIDS virus) and bacteria etc.

        I’m no fan of Richard Dawkins’s Darwin biased scholarship on the Matthew issue, but he does make very well the very simple point that it’s the best evidence-based explanation we have.

        What is most peculiar “or not as the case may be” is that on the site they actually wrote some stuff in green ink. Have they not heard the disparaging term “green ink analysis”? Most peculiar.

        I signed up to the site in the hope that I might post a polite clarifying comment. And I left them a message on the topic of “Dawkinite” (I really just could not help myself in that regard) . So far, no response on either front.

        Interesting times.

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        🙂 I wasn’t aware of that term, but you’re right! The last bit is, in every sense of the term, a “green ink” article (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Green_ink)! I think it’s from a separate contributor – I note that it’s indented from main page in black.

        Like

      • Dysology says:

        I quite like Rational Wiki. They let me publish an essay on why I think Matthew should be awarded full and complete (1st place – and head of the table) priority over Darwin and Wallace for the theory of natural selection: http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Patrick_Matthew&action=edit&redlink=1 Moreover, they don’t mash up and delete and add fallacies and unproven opinions to other people’s new hard fact-based content with their own ‘majority view’ biased and unevidenced mere ‘knowledge belief’ agendas in the way many dysological Wikipedia editors do.

        But Ratonalwki would not allow a Patrick Matthew page on the site. : http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Patrick_Matthew&action=edit&redlink=1

        The person who deleted it was very nice and efficient. They kindly advised me on using the essay format instead. Apparently the other users were rioting about my Matthew page and it was deleted to keep the peace. The person who both helped me and deleted “poor old Patrick Matthew’s page” has now retired and is “never coming back”! http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:ZooGuard

        Perhaps it is worth trying again?

        Like

  11. Dysology says:

    As far as information on the site is concerned It’s run and edited by David Coppedge. He is a believer in intelligent design. The site is seeking funds to help with his legal costs regarding his dismissal for what he alleges are discriminatory grounds based upon beliefs in ID. Apparently he lost the case.

    Some links: http://www.discovery.org/a/14511

    https://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2010/04/25/in-the-news-david-coppedge-sues-jpl-for-religious-discrimination/

    The Editor ‘s personal professional tragedy/difficulties aside, I thnk it’s interesting that the author (whoever it is) misconstrues (is ignorant of?) the known situation regarding why Matthew was not awarded full priority over Darwin. He thinks (misconstruing your 2015 Linnean paper) that Matthew 1871 letter to Darwin reveals that the reason might be that Matthew was perhaps too “mystical or vitalistic” – what he fails to notice (because he has – I would guess – not read Matthew’s 1831 is that tMatthew denounced the role of any kind of creator, mocked the church and mocked priests. Here is Matthew serving”God” his redundancy notice:

    (Matthew 1831, p.381):

    ‘Geologists discover a like particular conformity – fossil species – through the deep deposition of each great epoch, but they also discover an almost complete difference to exist between the species or stamp of life, of one epoch from that of every other. We are therefore led to admit either of a repeated miraculous creation; or of a power of change, under a change of circumstances, to belong to living organized matter, or rather to the congeries of inferior life, which appears to form superior. The derangements and changes in organized existence, induced by a change of circumstance from the interference of man, affording us proof of the plastic quality of superior life, and the likelihood that circumstances have been very different in the different epochs, though steady in each tend strongly to heighten the probability of the latter theory.’

    Darwin – in the Origin of Species – (1859) – on the other hand – was far more “mystical or vitalistic” than Matthew:

    In his first and other editions of the Origin of Species, Darwin (1859) wrote as though there is a supernatural “Creator” who designed natural selection as a law of nature to make and break species (Darwin 1859 p.489)

    ‘Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual.’

    In 1871 Matthew wrote to Darwin on his notions of ID. I think that is the first we see of him having such ideas.:

    ‘That there is a principle of beneficence operating here the dual parentage and family affection pervading all the higher animal kingdom affords proof. A sentiment of beauty pervading Nature, with only some few exceptions affords evidence of intellect & benevolence in the scheme of Nature. This principle of beauty is clearly from design & cannot be accounted for by natural selection. Could any fitness of things contrive a rose, a lily, or the perfume of the violet. There is no doubt man is left purposely in ignorance of a future existence. Their pretended revelations are wretched nonsense.’

    I wrote a blog post on this very topic on May 22 (2014) last year: https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=21999%2c21999

    So much for Richard Dawkins (2010) insisting that Matthew should have trumpeted his discovery form the rooftops if he knew the importance of his discovery – or if he wished to warrant being hailed as an immortal great thinker n science. Is Richard Dawkins being wilfully ignorant of the rules and conventions of the 19th-century gentlemen of science in that regard? They could not publically discuss Matthew’s work. Richard really does need to learn his history of science before holding forth on it. And shame on his editors and peer reviewers and shame on the Royal Society who funded the book containing that Dawknists Darwin-biased nonsense (“Seeing Further” edited by Bill Bryson) Because the cold hard fact of the matter is

    As Uglow (2002: p. 464) explains very clearly what happened in the year 1794:

    ”Pitt passed his notorious Two Acts against ‘Seditious Meetings’ and ‘Treasonable Practices’: the former hit particularly at the institutional societies, requiring them to be licensed and proscribing discussion of religion or politics’.

    In addition to explaining very clearly and patiently to weirdly biased Darwinists the problem that what Matthew had written trespassed – heretically and seditiously – upon the sacramental territory of natural theology on the question of the origin and extinction of species, and that he had then woven his hypothesis of natural section into his seditious Chartist politics (see my 2014 book ‘Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret’ for further discussion of citations to wider published scholarship on this topic), a further most telling reply to this especially biased made for Matthew “he needed to trumpet” argument is to ask, alternatively, why should Matthew be required to have done any more than publish his hypothesis, which he actually invited others to test?

    More no that final point here: https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=22734

    In sum, In 1831 Matthew had no intelligent design (no God) in his book that was the first publication ever to contain the full hypothesis of natural selection. In 1859 Darwin’s replication of MAtthew’s hypothesis had “God” setting the whole thing up (as did Robert Chambers “Vestiges” book that promoted the old “development theory” of organic evolution – that everything was, through evolution, progressing toward “God’s” idea of perfection).

    If any argument is to be made on the basis the presence or absence of “mystical or vitalistic” content in the story of Matthew and Darwin it would make more logical sense (weighing the actual facts of what each wrote) to suggest that Darwin was more successful than Matthew because (1) Matthew silenced debate about his ideas because he trespassed on natural theology and (2) following Chambers’s opening society up to discussion of such matters in the mid-19th century with his Vestiges (which he wrote after reading and citing Matthew’s 1831 book – it is newly discovered) Darwin played his cards very cleverly by re-employing the redundant “God” and then keeping the sad “God” employed in his story in a key mangement postion.

    Like

    • mikeweale says:

      Mike, I disagree with you on your analysis above. I think Matthew was *definitely* a believer in a created, purposeful universe later on in his life, and was *probably* a believer in such when he wrote his 1831 book. I agree there isn’t enough evidence either way to be 100% sure, but there’s enough to tip me in that direction. Handily, the Creationist piece quotes extensively from what I’ve written on PMP on this issue, so I need not repeat it here.

      Like

      • Dysology says:

        Hi Mike

        To be clear – as per my comment above and in all my work on the topic (including in my book) – I also think Matthew was *definitely* a believer in a created, purposeful universe later on in his life.” His 1871 letter to Darwin pretty much proves it.

        You write that you think he was *probably* a believer in such when he wrote his 1831 book. I suspect you have found something I’ve not read. If not, surely it’s not his use of the word “Providence” is it? If so the 19th century Scots had a different meaning for that to the English – as Dempster explained.

        Other than his use of the word “Providence” in 1831, can you provide here some text written by Matthew pre-1871 to support that argument?

        Mike

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        Mike, sorry – I didn’t mean to imply you thought otherwise re: P.M.’s later ideas on a created Universe. The emphasis was simply to contrast “definitely” with “probably”.

        No, there is no new evidence re 1831 (although there is for dates earlier than 1871, for example in 1849 and most definitely in 1861). This is a probabilistic argument, so there’s plenty of room to take the opposing view (which you do). My evidence, such as it is, it repeated in the Creationist blog, and the original source is https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/opinions/matthewsian-themes/.

        Like

  12. Dysology says:

    Hi Mike

    I agree – based on the 1849 article – that there is room for debate. I think we must be clear that we agree that other than the word Providence (also open to Dempster versus Wells interpretations) there is nothing in his 1831 book to suggest he was not an atheist at that time (he might not have been an atheist but it looks like he was) . The 1849 article is interesting but also open to opposite interpretation because the words “implanted in our nature for wise ends” could be intended to mean implanted by by natural selection for an insensible “survival of the fittest” end (wise by the outcome of insensible natural process not wise by an implanter). After all, if it were otherwise why not out with it like Darwin and Chambers did and say “creator” or “designer”?

    His “demon eels” letter of 1870 supports the notion that he may have moved back to being Christian. But it could also be interpreted as subtly mocking Christians:

    “The eels (water-serpents) according to our Christian creed, might every one of them be demon possessed, come to gloat in delight the horrible wreck and banquet. What more likely than an accident?’”

    Full letter and story about it here: https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=22422

    I think it is quite reasonable to assert that in 1831 all the evidence suggests he was atheist. There is some evidence (although due to its obtuse nature open to alternative interpretation) that between that date and 1870 and certainly thereafter that he believed in an intelligent and benevolent designer but that he thought all the Christian revelations were nonsense and that the “reasons for life” and answers about “death and afterlife” were deliberately designed to be out of reach of humanity. It seems the only reasons he could give for that belief system was (a) where he saw what he thought were signs of altruism and “love” in the animal kingdom that were explainable by natural selection and in the “unnecessary” objective beauty of flowers (as he saw it). He would have made a good dinner guest for Richard Dawkins.

    Like

  13. Dysology says:

    Typo above – I mean that were *unexplainable* by natural selection

    Like

  14. mikeweale says:

    Hi Mike, no I disagree. I don’t think it’s reasonable to assert that in 1831 all the evidence suggests he was an atheist. What I would say is that there isn’t much evidence to be sure either way, so there’s room to take up positions on either side of this debate. But while there isn’t *much* evidence, there is *some* evidence, and what little evidence here is definitely pushes me towards the view that Matthew believed in a created, designed Universe all his life (well, at least since before 1831). I think what I’ll do is write an opinion piece to lay out more clearly what this evidence is.

    Like

    • Dysology says:

      Sounds like a plan. Would you say the evidence suggests, that in 1831 and thereafter, he rejected Christianity and the Abrahamic God?

      Like

    • mikeweale says:

      In brief, I believe that Matthew followed in the footsteps of the eighteenth century scientific determinists (Hume, Laplace, etc.) who argued that the Universe was created, but thereafter there was no interference by the Creator (no miracles, in other words). This philosophy is at odds with all the major religions, which in one way or another are predicated on the idea of a God or Gods who intervene in their Creation (e.g. via Jesus, in the Christian faith).

      Like

  15. Dysology says:

    Matthew’s 1871 letter to Darwin:

    With a parable he criticizes the reasoning of the Christian notion that we must believe in the Abrahamic God and work hard against our competitive natures in order to gain entry to an afterlife (Matthew 1871):

    “There cannot be a doubt that in the scheme of nature there exists high design & constructive power carried out by general Laws, And the great probability is that these laws are everlasting, as Nature itself is, tho’ under these laws subject to revolution. It is also probable that the spark of life, like light, & heat &c., is radiated from the sun & has a power of building up to itself a domicile suited to existing circumstances & disseminating sparks of its own kind, but possessed of a variation power. That there is a principle of beneficence operating here the dual parentage and family affection pervading all the higher animal kingdom affords proof. A sentiment of beauty pervading Nature, with only some few exceptions affords evidence of intellect & benevolence in the scheme of Nature. This principle of beauty is clearly from design & cannot be accounted for by natural selection. Could any fitness of things contrive a rose, a lily, or the perfume of the violet. There is no doubt man is left purposely in ignorance of a future existence. Their pretended revelations are wretched nonsense.

    It is a beautiful parable, the woman walking through the City of Damascus bearing fire in the one hand & water in the other, crying, with this fire I will burn heaven & with this water extinguish hell that man may worship God for his own sake & not as mercenary labourers. We are gifted with a moral sense & it is delightful to do good. It is a pleasure to me to wish you & yours the enjoyment of doing good. I regret I cannot do more than wish it.”

    I cannot help wondering whether Matthew’s very last known words to Darwin are perhaps an invocation to go and do the right thing and admit that it was in truth Matthew’s discovery, hypothesis and explanatory examples that primarily influenced him in all his subsequent labors on the same idea. : https://kindle.amazon.com/post/FpFazBnQSLudGvPXwTH5PQ

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dysology says:

      So Mike

      From your interpretation of the evidence currently known, you are saying, are you not, that Patrick Matthew – the true father (true [first originator) of the full prior-published hypothesis of natural selection [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Patrick_Matthew:_priority_and_the_discovery_of_natural_selection ] believed in intelligent design when he wrote it out and when it was published in 1831?

      If so, then the natural conclusion of your conclusion is – is it not – one of the four possibilities below:

      (1) That the full and complete and appreciable hypothesis of natural selection was first written by someone who wished for it to be ultimately understood as evidence of the existence of a great supernatural intelligence at work in the design of nature on Earth?
      (2) Or do you think instead that Matthew believed in intelligent design, but did not want others to think it was the premise on which his hypothesis of ‘the natural process of slection’ was based? Or:
      (3) He believed in intelligent design, but we have insufficient data to know whether or not he wished for others to know that when appreciating the originality and uniqueness of his 1831 hypothesis? Or:
      (4) He believed in intelligent design but cared not one way or the other whether others knew it?

      Like

    • mikeweale says:

      I think it’s option (1) in your list above, and he says as much in one of his 1860 articles: https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/short-articles/1860-62/1860b-evoldes/. He refers to natural selection as surpassing any other natural phenomenon for “showing grandeur of design — means to end — display of infinite wisdom”. See also my Matthew article (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bij.12524/abstract). Now, I admit he wrote that in 1860, not 1831, but I think there are clues to lead us to believe that Matthew did not “convert” to this view, but rather held it all his life.

      Regarding your question above about the parable of the “woman of Damascus”, Matthew wrote this in reference to the “pretended revelations” of Christian priests in his previous paragraph. His point is that Heaven and Hell are man-made inventions, set up as a reward system to instill religious obedience. If only these were removed, we would be able to worship God properly (for his own sake). The parable comes from “The Memoirs of the Lord of Joinville” (for link to original, see https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/matthew-and-darwin/private/12-march-1871/).

      Like

    • mikeweale says:

      By the way, one has to be careful about the term “intelligent design”. If these words are capitalised to “Intelligent Design”, then this refers to the idea that species were miraculously created within a pre-existing Universe (even more specifically, it refers to the Biblical story of Genesis, of course). This is absolutely not what Matthew believed in (in my view). He believed in a Universe that was created by an intelligent, benevolent Designer, but without any subsequent intervention.

      Like

      • Dysology says:

        Hi Mike

        As you write: “He [Matthew] believed in a Universe that was created by an intelligent, benevolent Designer, but without any subsequent intervention.”

        In the Origin of Species Darwin wrote the same kind of statement used by Lyell and Chambers. This is essentially a Christian “naturalists statement” that the world is governed by natural laws rather than divine intervention. But it allows for a “God” to have set the whole thing up to work that way in the first place. To repeat the text I included above in an earlier comment:

        (Darwin 1859 – Origin of Species p.489)

        ‘Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual.’

        Thanks for link to the Woman from Damascus – I wondered where Matthew got it from.

        Do you think – according to your view of Matthew having this “creator” belief in 1831 – that Matthew’s belief in this “creator” was in any way at all different to that held by Lyell, Chambers and Darwin?

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        I think the view of a created universe, with no subsequent intervention by the creator, was a widespread view among nineteenth century scientists. It accords with what Darwin wrote publicly (it is only through his private letters that we learn of his doubts as to whether there was an intelligent creator at al). I’m not familiar enough with the writings of Lyell and Chambers to comments specifically on their beliefs.

        Like

      • Dysology says:

        Both Lyell and Chambers wrote the same thing as Darwin (see: “The Principles of Geography” and “The Vestiges of Creation”

        So what we know is that – according to your interpretation of Matthew wrote in his published work – it is interpreted by you as according with the same belief as the one Darwin wrote publicly.

        We have Darwin’s letters that express his private doubts. But Matthew’s daughters burnt all of his private letters papers (according to family oral history) because of his atheistic heresy, which rendered this daughters supposedly un-marriageable. I suppose this family notion of his heresy is because Matthew never mentioned a “Creator” being responsible for the first causes as did Darwin, Chambers and Lyell etc. I wonder why he missed that trick if he believed in a creator in 1831? What do you think?

        Like

      • Dysology says:

        Sorry – brain dead typo – I meant “Principles of Geology”

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        Hi Mike, I think there are all sorts of possible reasons why Matthew never wrote the word “Creator” in his 1831 book. One possibility is that he was in fact an atheist, but for various reasons I don’t think this is the explanation that best fits the facts. Other reasons include: (1) a Creator was the implied default position in 1831, so why emphasise it; (2) Matthew had heterodox views on the Creator – he was anti the Christian orthodoxy – he may have wanted to avoid entering into a theological fight on this issue; (3) Matthew’s views on the origin of species are contained solely within his “End-Appendix” of 12 paragraphs – a brief space in which to add a section on his views on a Creator. Darwin had a whole book on the origin of species, and still only mentions a Creator 3 times in the whole book.

        I’m highly suspicious of this Matthew oral history story, the one about his daughters burning all his private correspondence in a fit of pique over their Dad being an atheist. Oral history, especially when recalled several generations later, is a notoriously unreliable basis for information. If this story were true, how come Euphemia was able, in 1912, to provide Calman with the originals of the letters Darwin wrote to Matthew (for Calman’s review of Matthew)?

        Like

      • Dysology says:

        Hi Mike

        Firstly, I agree that the oral history about the letter burning has to be treated skeptically. Errol Jones also got the facts wrong about what happened when Matthew’s paper was platform blocked in Dundee, What she wrote was at odds with Matthew’s own letter to the newspapers on that debacle. She thought (wrongly) Matthew withdrew all his papers when one was not accepted. https://kindle.amazon.com/post/nIdmY77vRa69DowOo5-7Lg

        However, we can be 100 % sure he was anti Christian orthodoxy in 1831. Yes agreed. What he wrote surely proves it.

        Just to check – am I right in thinking that any other confirmatory evidence that you rely upon to make a reasoned guess as to whether or not he believed in some kind of creator in 1831 comes from:

        1.His use of the word “Providence” in 1831 (which Dempster 1996 tells us meant “thrift” in Scotland).
        2. What he wrote from 1849 onward – in fact 18 years after 1831?

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        Hi Mike, the evidence for Matthew believing in a designed Universe in 1831 is:
        1) His famous sentence describing natural selection as part of an even greater universal law of circumstance adaptation: “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” (see https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/on-naval-timber/natural-selection/excerpt-2/). It is striking that he uses the terms “beauty” and “unity of design” here, given that in his later writings he uses the existence of beauty as evidence for design, and given that he later proposed that the law of natural selection showed “grandeur of design” within a designed universe. Some people have interpreted “unity of design” to mean “similarity of body plan”, but I think Matthew’s later writings suggest he was referring to “unity of design, as purposed by a Designer”
        2) His book section entitled “The apparent use of the infinite seedling varieties of plants” (see https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/on-naval-timber/natural-selection/excerpt-4/). Again, his use of the word “use” implies utility within a designed universe, where everything needs to have a purpose. Again, I appreciate that this kind of purposeful language crops up a lot in evolutionary language (e.g. “Trait X is ‘for’ doing Y”) but it is unusual to ascribe a purpose to variation itself, as Matthew does here.
        3) On pp.56-7, Matthew refers to a “design and utility in this fascination of peculiarity”. Matthew is referring both to the peculiarity of individuals (in the sense that everyone is unique) and the peculiarity of nations (different national characteristics). To Matthew, both these things have a “design”, because people wouldn’t be attracted to each other, or form strong communities, without it.

        Points (1) and (2) were spotted by Wells (1973). Point (3) is a new one spotted by me.
        On their own, I don’t think any of these points are of sufficient weight to conclude that Matthew definitely believed in a designed universe. But to these we can add the following observations. (1) There is no contradictory evidence – i.e. there is no positive evidence to the effect that he was an atheist in 1831; (2) he definitely believed in a designed universe later on in his life – this is incontrovertible from 1860 onwards; (3) true atheists were like hen’s teeth in 1831 – thus a priori the more likely thing was that he wasn’t; (4) to me, Matthew comes across as a strongly independently minded man of conviction, who arrived at his core set of beliefs early on in life and did not sway from them. I see no reason to adopt the alternative idea that he started as a true atheist, and switched to a believer in a designed universe later on, and plenty of reasons to believe he was always a believer.

        Like

      • Dysology says:

        Hi Mike

        I think you make a reasoned and compelling argument. When you weigh what you have in that unique synthesis in with the fact that he did actually capitalize the word “Providence” – in the whole – I think your argument outweighs Dempster’s view that he meant providence in terms of economy. As you say there is room for doubt and counter argument but I think you’ve nailed it.

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        Mike, I’m delighted to hear you say that! Matthew’s comments on Providence come in his 1839 book Emigration Fields, so one could always argue that he was an atheist in 1831 and converted to a believer in a Creator sometime in between, but I do think the small clues in the 1831 book point to a consistency of belief. That’s the kind of guy Matthew was! There is one reference to Providence in the 1831 book, but there Matthew is paraphrasing an argument of Henry Stuart, not making an argument of his own.

        Like

  16. Dysology says:

    Yes – I suppose if we wanted to construct an objective defense case for Matthew the 1831 atheist – which we should try to do (perhaps we need a table with arguments for versus those against) there are two strong arguments. (1) he never mentioned a “creator”, and elsewhere in the 1831 book was happy to court great personal, heretical and seditious controversy – so there is no solid reason to suppose he would have wished to avoid “entering into a theological fight” (2) He was certainly anti-Christian church (3) He was not of inflexible/constant character. In his 1862 letter to Darwin years later he explains that his own selfish self-interest for his own kind (presumably as proposed in Emigration Fields) was gone and that now he could not even bring himself to pick a flower – it is not hard evidence at all, but this could be used as supporting evidence for a counter-arguent that he came later to believe in a morality bounded by some kind of religious sympathies rather than just humanism:

    ‘…yet am I tired of it of a world where my sympathies are intended to be bounded almost exclusively to my own race & family. I am not satisfied with my existence to devour & trample upon my fellow creature. I cannot pluck a flower without regarding myself a destroyer..’

    http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-3843

    Like

    • Dysology says:

      Regarding being given the data – and then having the brains to know what to do with it, I found a stinging quote from the great Almroth Wright: https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=23003

      Like

    • mikeweale says:

      Hi Mike, yes I agree with your points (1) and (2) above.

      Regarding your point (3), I agree that Matthew was conflicted in his views regarding the “use of the selfish passions” (as he titled Note D of his 1831 Appendix: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044102888526;view=1up;seq=22). But I think that Matthew was “consistently conflicted” regarding the use of the selfish passions throughout his life. it wasn’t an age-related thing. In all his writings, including his 1831 book, one finds conflicting views on what one might call triumphalist imperialism vs doubts concerning the ultimate end that human selfishness might lead to. Consider, for example, his memorable Environmentalist writing at the end of his End-Appendix (https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/on-naval-timber/natural-selection/excerpt-2/), where he frets that “this engrossing anomaly” (man) will eventually drive all other non-domesticated species to extinction.

      In fact, in Matthew’s choice of words in “Use of the selfish passions” we find yet another clue to Matthew’s deep-seated belief in a designed, purposeful Universe in his 1831 book. Everything had to have a utility, including the selfish passions. Ironically, a modern evolutionary interpretation would be to say they need have no modern use, but rather are evolutionary relics from our ape-like ancestry. But to Matthew, everything needs to have a use right now, as part of a designed universe. Look again at what Matthew says to Darwin in the segment of the letter you quote above: “yet am I tired of it of a world where my sympathies are **intended** to be bounded almost exclusively to my own race & family.” I’ve starred the word “intended”, because again the implication is that he referring to his sympathies being intended for a purpose. If anything, this is Matthew *rebelling* against a Designer who saw fit to design a Universe that gave Matthew such sympathies. It’s fascinating to unpick Matthew’s conflicted sentiments on this issue throughout his life.

      Like

  17. Dysology says:

    Compelling an interesting stuff Mike.

    It’s a shame he never explained what he meant by “intended.” All we have is the fact he used that word. We don’t have the fact of what he meant it to mean. We do have the fact that used it ambiguously, however.So the fact of the matter is that we are trying to make sense of of things that are cryptic, ambiguous and open to the opposite interpretation.

    I do still think that the weight of evidence you have gathered favours your interpretation. But it is a patchwork of odd words and phrases that were not as specific as they could so easy have been made. And Matthew could write very clearly when he wanted the reader to know his ideas. So why write so cryptically on the issue of purposeful design in 1831?

    As a worrisome potential counter-argument someone could still argue that Matthew was not specific enough for us to be sure one way or the other. Because he could have meant “intended” to mean an insensible consequence of the natural law he called the natural process of selection. Personally, I doubt it. But what worries me is the question of just how easy is it for us to lead ourselves wherever we want to be by conveniently saying what Matthew “implied” whenever seeking to know his hidden mind in that way suits our aims.

    Could we – if we looked for them – not find other words and phrases that “implied” (if we choose to say so) he was an atheist – or that “implied” he was **conflicted** on the choice of whether he was an atheist or believer in design?

    I really don’t trust this notion of suggesting things were “implied”. It seems to me to be a recipe for “seance methodology” self-delusion.

    In sum, I’m convinced by your arguments and interpretations. But I’m glad they are yours.

    Like

  18. Arifin said: The name of Patrick Matthew in Indonesia is not well known.

    Like

  19. Dysology says:

    Has anyone else spotted the most probably veracious likelihood that Alfred Wallace was actually being hugely sarcastic when he wrote to Charles Darwin’s best friend and Linnean Debacle co-conspirator Joseph Hooker in his 6th October 1858 letter? https://kindle.amazon.com/post/_afFE1nnRrKSj8x260gFkw

    Full letter here: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/entry-2337

    Like

    • mikeweale says:

      Mike, the only reason why you think Wallace is being sarcastic in this letter is because you are convinced that Darwin conspired to cheat Wallace, that Wallace knew this, and that both conspired to cheat Matthew, so it’s the only logical conclusion open to you. Since I believe it is highly unlikely that any of these things are true, I am able to adopt the simpler explanation – which is to take what Wallace is saying at face value.

      Like

      • Dysology says:

        Mike, and on that same line of argument – one might retort that the only reason that you are not open to that interpretation is because you are convinced by the majority view, put out there by Darwin’s deifying Darwinists that Darwin was an honest scholar who never lied and cheated, despite the 100 percent verifiable hard evidence that he was a liar – who lied in order to cheat others out of their priority for the prior discovery of natural selection.

        Overall, it should not be a question of what anyone “believes”. Surely, it should be an acceptance of the need to hard facts that overturn those prior Darwin worship beliefs. Don’t you agree?

        Who discovered first that Darwin was a liar – who lied to cheat Matthew for his prior discovery?

        I don’t need to *believe* anything. I have new facts. I can give you – once again – the new and independently verifiable hard facts that I uniquely found and published Mike.

        What happens in the mind of the recipient after that needs to transcend biased deifying belief in Darwin’s honesty that is based on 155 of self-serving Darwinist mythmongery – now debunked.

        Here is the hard evidence that Darwin was a liar and chat (assisted by his very best friend Joseph Hooker):
        https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=22935

        I don’t *believe* Darwin was a lying cheat. I have uniquely proved that he most definitely was.

        Did Wallace know that too? I can’t 100 know what Wallace knew. We can 100 percent know that Darwin lied. I have never said that Darwin and Wallace *conspired* to cheat Matthew. Its just served both their purposes to cheat him. They cheated him independently of each other.

        Why do Darwinists now cry conspiracy theory at the new evidence?https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=22930

        Because its a self-serving device to discredit uncomfortable hard facts that they can’t argue against?

        There was no conspiracy. The closest we get to a conspiracy is where Hooker and Lyell together misled to the Linnean Society into thinking Wallace had given his consent to have his paper read. He never did. But I’d not call it a conspiracy. You seem to think I think it was one. When two burglars break into a house is it a conspiracy? What about two shoplifters working together, is that a conspiracy? Of course not.

        Do you also take it at face value that Wallace – in his autobiography – deleted certain incriminating words from his letter to his mother about the Linnean Debacle Mike? What is the face value worth now Mike?https://kindle.amazon.com/post/lflOjh9NS6i4DryxTH8dYA

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        Mike, I agree it should be all about the hard facts, and not about what people “believe”. I did not mean to imply that you 100% believed in your interpretation of the data, nor that I believed 100% in my interpretation of the data. I was using “believe” as a short-hand. As scientists / empirical historians, we should always leave room for doubt – for the possibility that some alternative interpretation of the data is the correct one.

        Regarding Wallace, I really do think the best interpretation of the data is that he was being genuine when, in numerous letters and publications, he credited Darwin as the person who deserved most acclaim for the idea of evolution by natural selection. After all, he called his best-selling book about evolution “Darwinism”. It’s possible that he was sending coded or sarcastic messages when he said all those things, but it seems a pretty unlikely explanation to me.

        Like

      • Dysology says:

        At the end of the day (as they say):

        “You never know how much you really believe anything until its truth or falsehood becomes a matter of life and death.” C.S. Lewis.

        I suspect that, overall, falsehoods kill more people than truth.

        Darwin told many a falsehood in order to grasp priority from Matthew – as it is newly discovered. Darwinists choose not to deal with them. Wallace engaged in his own falsehoods in his autobiography of his own place in the story of Matthew, Darwin and Wallace – as it is newly discovered. Wallacists choose not to engage with them. No conspiracy. Just laughable bad scholarship in the history of scientific discovery. History will not be kind to the deifying Darwinist. The cat is finally out of the bag and there can be no getting it back in by pretending it never happened.

        Therefore, I choose to expose those falsehoods and not sweep them under the carpet woven from 19th century scientific mythology of Saint Darwin of Down.

        When we knowingly continue to deify liars and charlatans where will that lead us – at the end of the day?

        Nullius in Verba!

        Like

  20. Sehape.com says:

    Null articles sir? and i like it. 😀

    Like

  21. Dysology says:

    If the esteemed Matthew scholar and microbiologist Professor Milton Wainwright of Sheffield University, England, lives up to his name and is “right” about having discovered alien particles raining alien biological-matter down on Earth, then Dr Mike Weale’s discovery of Matthew’s probable belief in a purposefully designed universe – when Matthew was first to have published his original and complete hypothesis of macro organic evolution by the ‘natural process of selection’ – raises some most interesting questions about the need to address Darwin’s eclipse of Matthew’s brilliant immortal great thinking in science.

    On this conjunction: see the triangulated discoveries of Wainwright, Weale and Sutton (that’s me) here: https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=23046

    Like

  22. mikeweale says:

    I’ve just learned (from Donald Forsdyke himself) about his excellent video series on evolution and Patrick Matthew. I’ve added the information to “About PMP > More on Matthew”. His series can be accessed here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL59A9C65FB0DCED9E

    Like

  23. Dysology says:

    Yes it’s really rather good Mike. One of the unfortunately best kept secrets on the topic. I have, for some time now, been doing some work on Twitter to bring it to wider attention. I rather like the “bombshell!” significance element.

    Like

  24. Dysology says:

    I stumbled across the very obscure Macfarlane’s Law yesterday. It really gets you thinking.

    As a criminologists, I’m interested in seeing if it might be useful in criminal investigations.

    Meanwhile, I think it fits the competing yet oddly so-called ‘majority view’ “theories” for why Darwin and Wallace – and all other naturalists – supposedly had no prior knowledge (pre-1860) of Matthews book and the bombshell ideas in it.

    Macfarlane’s Law:

    ‘When a number of conflicting theories co-exist, any point on which they all agree is the one most likely to be wrong.’

    My discussion of this “law” in the story of Matthew, Darwin and Wallace: https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=23051

    Like

  25. Dysology says:

    Now for some “woo-woo” fun – Forsdyke’s Bombshell appeared as if by “coincidence” : https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=23059

    Like

  26. mikeweale says:

    Mike, were you aware of the following interesting similarity between a famous passage of Darwin’s, and something that Matthew wrote in NTA? I thank Donald Forsdyke for pointing out the Matthew quote (see the end of his last video in his educational video series (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL59A9C65FB0DCED9E).

    The Darwin quote, from the last paragraph of “On the Origin of Species”, is: “It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us.”

    The Matthew quote, from pp.229-30 of NTA, is: “Look at the broken mound, with its old picturesque trees and tangled bushes; there is the ancient root where the throstle had its nestlings, which are now at large on the leafy boughs, and are tuning their yet unformed notes to melody. Now every twig has raised its new column of foliage to the sun; and branch, and root, and stone, embellished all over in the richest variety of cryptogamic beauty, swarm of insect life.”

    The scene is used differently (to contemplate Nature’s laws by Darwin, to contrast beautiful Nature with boring manicured parks by Matthew), but the similarity of the picture is striking.

    Like

    • Dysology says:

      Apologies Mike – having only just watched the last video in the series I see that Donald Forsdyke did not – as I supposed you meant – draw a comparison between that text and Darwin’s. It was you who did so. And so this should rightfully be named “Weale’s Entanglement Analogy” .http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/professor-donald-forsdyke-discovers.html

      Like

      • mikeweale says:

        I have asked Donald Forsdyke about this. He does underline the words “broken mound” and “tangled bushes” in his video, which suggests to me that he was deliberately drawing attention to Darwin’s famous “tangled bank” passage, even though he doesn’t say so explicitly. His reply to me (by email) was “I suspect that I deliberately drew attention to the “entangled” quotes, but I am pretty sure this was derived from Dempster”. From which I gathered that (a) he prepared the videos so long ago that he can’t remember for sure whether he was deliberately drawing attention to the similarity or not; and (b) he thought he’d read Matthew’s quote somewhere else, already in connection with Darwin’s passage. The problem is, he thought it is was in Dempster, and you’ve looked and can’t find it there. So the implication is that, somewhere out there, there is an original work where this link between the two passages is made – but we don’t know where or who wrote it!

        Like

    • Dysology says:

      Of course weird coincidences happen. One of Professor Milton Wainwright’s ‘alien particles’ looks for all the world like the Dactyl satellite of the Ida asteroid : https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=22955

      Like

    • Dysology says:

      I do remember reading both. Its possible I was searching in NTA and the Origin on certain words and looked at both that way. If attention has been drawn to both in print – I have almost certainly read it – it will come to light. I’ll always keep an eye out. If I ever find it on re-reading stuff I’ll let you know

      Like

  27. Dysology says:

    It passed me by Mike.

    It is indeed of “great coincidence” – or not, as the case may be.

    I was aware of something like it right at the start. I think Eiseley got it first in “Darwin’s Century”. But I think it was about looking at a square meter of earth (I think so) I’ll need to check. It could be that I’m wrong and Prof Forsdyke was first to get that entire comparative example.

    I remember reading two texts through a couple of times (from wherever I saw the similar or same comparison made) with the actual text in The Origin and deciding at the time that the similarities did not seem to me to be close enough prose-wise to make much of them.

    Whatever the case, the examples of comparative text were made by someone other than me. But I think the example was different to this Forsdyke one – or else I was looking then at Forsdyke’s example far too early in my research to realize its significance in the light of what I later found.

    How many coincidences of this kind add up to a more likely than not probability of plagiarism Mike?

    Take the Darwin 1842 essay – Artificial versus Naturally selected trees ‘analogy of differences’ add it to this Forsdyke ‘Analogy of Tangles’ and we see of The great replicator Darwin.

    What a tangled web Darwin weaved as he practiced to deceive.

    Like

    • Dysology says:

      It’s not in Darwin’s Century. And a skim read of Dempster’s books fails to find it -at least on my part. Unless disconfirming evidence comes up it seems fair to say that this “Tangles Analogy” is Forsdyke’s discovery.

      Like

      • Dysology says:

        OK so while we are on the topic of Darwin Prose and Concept Coincidences

        Here are just two (of many examples published in my book Nullius):

        (1)

        Darwin’s unpublished private essay of 1844 reveals his great interest in trees as key to understanding natural selection as an analogue of artificial selection, was remarkably similar to Matthew’s discovery. Matthew, who elsewhere in Naval Timber an Arboricullture (1831) (p. 280-285, 366) wrote about the relative hardiness of naturally selected crab apple trees compared with artificially selected hybridized apple trees, wrote (Matthew 1831, p. 308):

        ‘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 private 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…’

        Eiseley (1979) thought that this replication of ideas alone was sufficient proof that Darwin had read Naval Timber and Arboriculture and plagiarised Matthew

        (2) Just one of very many of my own examples:

        Matthew (1831):

        “…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…”

        So similarly in his unpublished essay of 1844, Darwin later wrote:

        “How incomparably ‘truer’ then would a race produced by the above rigid, steady, natural means of selection, excellently trained and perfectly adapted to its conditions…

        (3) Perhaps Darwin’s most brazen example – another example unique to Nullius:

        When it comes to theft of discoveries and their associated invented hypotheses, accomplished research fraudsters pass off the discoveries and inventions of others as their own by changing the words in order to misappropriate the ideas and concepts expressed and explained. In the following example of this, we can see how Darwin substituted the word “closely” for Matthew’s above use of “nearly” , thereby replicating the meaning of Matthew’s “species nearly allied” to become the now oft cited Darwinian term “closely allied”. Darwin probably copied this particular re-phrase from Wallace, who actually published it first in his Sarawak paper. Typically, Darwin took the explanations contained in one important paragraph written by Matthew then he split, re-arranged and tweaked its wording.

        For example, Darwin writes (1859, p. 15):

        ‘I may add, that when under nature the conditions of life do change, variations and reversions of character probably do occur; but natural selection, as will hereafter be explained, will determine how far the new characters thus arising shall be preserved.

        When we look to the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants, and compare them with species closely allied together, we generally perceive in each domestic race, as already remarked, less uniformity of character than in true species.’

        To reveal the provenance of these two cleverly dispersed selections of plagiarised work we need only switch them back by placing the second above the first (Darwin 1859) thus:

        ‘When we look to the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants, and compare them with species closely allied together, we generally perceive in each domestic race, as already remarked, less uniformity of character than in true species. I may add, that when under nature the conditions of life do change, variations and reversions of character probably do occur; but natural selection, as will hereafter be explained, will determine how far the new characters thus arising shall be preserved.’

        Now compare the above reunited paragraph with Matthew’s original version below, Note that while the words have been substituted, the previously dispersed text on just one page of the Origin now contains, sentence by sentence, exactly the same ideas and even the same reference to both plants and animals that originated in Matthew’s paragraph (Matthew 1831, p.385):

        ‘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.’

        If that’s not plagiarism then nothing is! And we can add it as clear evidence to the fact that in place of Matthew’s (1831) unique phrase ‘natural process of selection’, Alfred Wallace (1855), described the same concept making use of two of those four words to write: ‘natural process of gradual extinction and creation of species’. But Darwin (1859), as we know, more brazenly simply four-word-shuffled Matthew’s unique phrase ‘natural process of selection’ into a unique one of his own, which he re-branded the ‘process of natural selection’. And, as if that’s not enough, there are other examples of similarly blatant plagiarism, or else remarkable coincidence. For example, in Naval Timber and Arboriculture (hereafter NTA) Matthew used the unique phrase ‘selection by the law of nature’ and unsurprisingly, we find that on page 224 of the Origin, where Darwin has slyly shortened it to his own – notably once again unique – phrase: ‘selection by nature’.

        ….shall we go on for pages and page Mike?

        Like

  28. Dysology says:

    Once again Macfarlane’s Law kicks in:

    ‘When a number of conflicting theories co-exist, any point on which they all agree is the one most likely to be wrong.’

    ‘The common assumption made by all those who have tried to explain Darwin’s replication of Matthew’s original prior published hypothesis, his prose, his examples, his analogies and his terminology, is that he ‘independently’ of Matthew made the same discovery and so never lied when he claimed no prior knowledge of Matthew’s book.’

    https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=23051

    Like

    • mikeweale says:

      Mike, I have to say that the way I see it, there is just one “Darwin didn’t plagiarise Matthew” hypothesis, but I can see several alternative “Darwin did plagiarise Matthew” hypotheses, all of them requiring a different evaluation of the data. These include: (1) Darwin read Matthew’s book early in his career, then forgot about it (the “cryptomnesia” hypothesis); (2) Darwin came across Matthew’s book via his own researches, deliberately hid the fact, but acted alone with no co-conspirators (the “lone wolf” hypothesis); (3) Darwin, along with a group of co-conspirators, acted together to hide the fact that they all knew about Matthew’s book and what it contained (the “conspiracy” hypothesis); (4) Darwin never knew about Matthew’s book, but absorbed key elements of evolutionary theory via third parties who had read Matthew’s book (the “knowledge contamination” hypothesis – technically this isn’t plagiarism but it counts as “influence” if the elements absorbed are indeed “key”). All this is before we add Wallace into the mix, and multiply up all possible Darwin-Wallace plagiarism combinations (4×4 = 16 hypotheses, or 4×5 = 20 hypotheses if we allow “Wallace didn’t plagiarise Matthew” as one option).

      So using Macfarlane’s Law, the one thing these hypotheses all have in common (that Darwin plagiarised, or at least was influenced by, Matthew) must be wrong?

      Like

      • Dysology says:

        Mike

        That’s interesting.

        The way Macfarlane used it was for competing explanations for an outcome not for motive or behavior to explain an outcome – which is how, it seems to me, you have used it.

        In the example used by Macfarlane he is telling us about competing theories to explain why Fleming never personally developed his discovery of penicillin. Note: no motive in the outcome (dependent) variable

        Macfarlane (1984, p. 253 ) found his law applied to the story of penicillin:

        ‘The one common assumption made by all those who have tried to explain Fleming’s lack of success was that he was convinced of the immense potential value of his discovery and did his best to establish this against the odds that proved too great for him.’

        Turning to Darwin

        I used Macfarlane’s principle examine competing theories for why Darwin replicated Matthew’s prior published hypothesis (note – no motive as part of a non-value laden outcome [dependent] variable).

        Unlike Macfarland and I, you have a value laden guilty/reckless behavior as your dependent (outcome) variable.

        Competing Darwinist ‘explanations’ (independent variables) , for Darwins replication of Matthew’s prior published hypothesis (dependent variable) are all based on the newly proven fallacious premise of Darwin’s honesty, for why Darwin supposedly failed pre-1858 to read the one book in the world he most needed to read, include the following:

        Matthew’s book was inappropriately titled
        Matthew’s book was on an obscure topic
        Matthew’s book was on a topic that would not interest a naturalist
        Matthew’s ideas on natural selection were limited to a couple of paragraphs in an obscure appendix
        Matthew’s book was unread by any naturalists
        Matthew’s book was unread by anyone known to Darwin or Wallace
        No one mentioned in the literature Matthew’s unique ideas on natural selection
        Matthew’s ideas were not clearly written
        Matthew wrote nothing original on natural selection

        Like

  29. Dysology says:

    Mike – to be clearer:

    I think that given that Macfarlane was a hematologist, I imagine his “law” was intended to explain how to weed out fallacious explanations for factual objective outcomes not fallacious explanations for cognitive purposeful or negligent deviant human behavior.

    Although, various forms of deviant human behavior could be competing explanations for a factual outcome.

    Such a straight factual actual outcome could be (1) Failing to take your discovery forward (applies to Fleming and also Matthew) (2) Replicating a prior published hypothesis without citation of it (applies to Darwin). But it could not be “He was a plagiarist” – because that is not an objective outcome.

    Like

    • mikeweale says:

      I’m not 100% sure, but I think what Macfarlane was saying was something along the lines of “if there are a whole bunch of unsatisfactory theories based on a key common assumption X, then one reasonable explanation is that X is wrong”. When applied to Darwin, Wallace and Matthew, I see a whole bunch of hypotheses, some with a common assumption X and some with the opposite assumption ~X, so I don’t see how it applies. In any case, I don’t suppose even Macfarlane thought it as some sort of universal law of nature, rather that it was something that might apply in some circumstances.

      Like

      • Dysology says:

        Yes that’s what he simply wrote in the book I have. But we have only one example of how he applied it in the current text. Other books might help if they were to be had – in order to see how he intended it to be used

        https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oU05AAAAIAAJ&q=%22macfarlane%27s+law%22&dq=%22macfarlane%27s+law%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAWoVChMIkeed6fvsxgIVrJrbCh32uglv

        One other interpretation is simply to question most the data that fits your expectations and to focus on the paradoxes and anomalies https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-A2EjupsPCgC&pg=PA4&dq=%22macfarlane%27s+law%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAmoVChMIkeed6fvsxgIVrJrbCh32uglv#v=onepage&q=%22macfarlane's%20law%22&f=false

        Like

      • Dysology says:

        And, of course, the unsolved PROBLEM to focus on – following my original discoveries in the case of Darwin, Wallace and Matthew is how on Earth Darwin and Wallace ‘interdependently’ of Matthew’s prior published hypothesis

        The PROBLEM to solve is to show how on Earth they did that even though they were surrounded by, and admitted being influenced on the same topic by, naturalists they knew who had read Matthew’s book and cited it in the literature pre-1858. Let’s call this Darwin’s and Wallace’s Immaculate Conception Paradox. That is the problem and paradox we now need to focus on as proper scholars – as opposed to mere Darwin worshipers – if we wish not to deny the problematic significance of the New Data I discovered.

        The myth of of Darwin’s saintly honesty is blown to smithereens by the fact he is also now a proven liar. The biggest whopper being the lie that he knew to be so when he wrote that no naturalist had read Matthew’s prior published theory before 1860 – which is compounded now by the fact that he personally knew four naturalists who had cited it long before 1858. And we have Wallace’s dishonesty in altering the published copy of the letter he sent his mother to hide what he had written about Darwin and his cronies owing him favours!

        I focused on the problems and paradoxes thrown up by the New Data. Darwinists – such as James Moore (in the Telegraph) in response to my original discoveries merely stated that he doubted anything new had been discovered. He never bothered himself to find out.

        My current research project involves focusing on the PROBLEM of pseudo-scholarship among leading Darwinists.

        Like

      • Dysology says:

        In sum:

        My original discoveries create a big problem for Darwinists

        The problem that Darwinists now have to solve is:

        ‘How on Earth did Darwin and Wallace discover Natural Selection independently of Matthew’s prior published hypothesis of it; despite the newly discovered fact that they were influenced and facilitated on the same topic by naturalists they knew who had long before read and cited Matthew’s book.’

        If Darwinists can do that, only then they can solve what we might call the Paradox of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Immaculate Conceptions of a Prior Published Hypothesis.

        Like

  30. Dysology says:

    In light of the New Data regarding who actually did read Matthew’s book pre 1868, the lies Darwin told and what has been discussed immediately above regarding Professor Donald Forsdyke’s discovery of the ‘Tangled Analogy’ and of Macfarlane’s Law and Professsor Root-Bernstein’s interpretation of it. I would like to take the liberty of summarizing in full the situation – as I now see it – that is currently facing Darwinists writing on the topic of the discovery of natural selection:

    – Summary –

    In 1831, the Scottish laird, farmer, orchard owner, grain dealer and botanist, Patrick Matthew, authored ‘On Naval Timber and Arboriculture.’ Matthew’s book is recognised by leading experts on this topic as the first publication to contain the complete hypothesis of the theory of natural selection.

    Exceptional claims, arguably, require exceptional evidence.

    Exceptional claims were made by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace when they each claimed to have arrived at the theory of natural selection independently of Matthew’s prior published, extensively advertised, and reviewed work and independently of one another. Yet the surviving private notebooks, oftentimes with torn out pages, and sections of text scribbled out, along with the heavily decimated correspondence archives of these two men is not even close to being capable of warranting the description ‘exceptional evidence’ for their claimed dual independent discoveries of Matthew’s prior published discovery.

    Darwin went so far as to claim that no naturalist had read it before Matthew brought his published discovery to his attention in 1860. That was a fallacy – since it is newly discovered that 25 people cited Matthew’s book in the literature pre-1858. Most importantly, seven of them were naturalists. Darwin knew four of those. And three of the four played major roles influencing and facilitating the pre-1858 work of Darwin and Wallace (Sutton 2014).

    The exceptional evidence of these newy discovered and independently verifiable hard-facts surely makes this New Data a game-changing discovery in the history of the discovery of natural selection.

    The new, independently verifiable, exceptional evidence, of who both Darwin and Wallace knew who read Matthew’s book pre-1858, who they admitted influenced them on the same topic, proves beyond reasonable doubt, in my considered opinion, which is reached in light of considerable further incriminating new and older evidence, discussed in detail, in my e-book Nullius, that both Darwin and Wallace lied by pretending they had no prior-knowledge of Matthew’s prior published work; and that both committed science fraud by plagiarising Matthew’s unique and complex discovery, his name for it and his original analogy of the process in nature compared to culture. They even ripped-off his unique creative perspective.

    My original discoveries create a big problem for Darwinists

    Good scholarship in any field involves questioning: ‘…most the the data that best fit your expectations and focus instead upon the unsolved problems, anomalies, and paradoxes of your field.’ (Root-Bernstein 1993).

    Consequently, the new problem that Darwinists now have to solve is:

    How on Earth did Darwin and Wallace discover Natural Selection independently of Matthews’ prior published hypothesis of it; despite the newly discovered fact that they were influenced and facilitated on the same topic by naturalists they knew who had long before read and cited Matthews’ book, which contains it?

    If Darwinists can solve this new problem, rationally and convincingly, in light of just how many of Matthews’ original ideas and examples Darwin and Wallace replicated, along with his powerful Artificial Versus Natural Selection Explanatory Analogy of Differences, and his terminology,* then, and only then, can they solve what we might name the Paradox of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Immaculate Conceptions of Matthew’s Prior Published Hypothesis.

    Of significant note also, is the fact that the problem of claimed independent replication of a full, complete, appreciable, original and unique prior-published, problem solving and game-changing idea, hypothesis or theory, whilst in contact with those who are 100 per cent proven to have read the publication containing it, is unique in the history of scientific discovery to the story of Matthew, Darwin and Wallace. That makes it an anomaly. And as Kuhn’s seminal work on the Structure of Scientific Revolutions explains: ‘A shift in professional commitments to shared assumptions takes place when an anomaly subverts the existing tradition of scientific practice.’ Darwinists must now take note that their anomaly dodging assumption, of Darwin’s and Wallace’s remarkable honesty, which they have shared and relied upon in order to deal with the anomaly of Darwin’s and Wallace’s so-called ‘independent’ discoveries of Matthew’s prior published discovery, is now bust in the light of Wallace’s now proven dishonesty and Darwin’s blatant lies.

    If exceptional claims do require exceptional evidence, then that is exactly what Darwinists must provide now in light of the New Data presented in Nullius.

    Notably, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, which means that, to repeat the point already made, what remains in Darwin’s and Wallace’s massively decimated private correspondence archives, private diaries, and Darwin’s torn apart, missing pages and scribbled out text private notebooks and essays – dated as written in the exact same year, or after, Darwin’s influential friends and associates, and Wallace’s Sarawak paper editor, read and cited Matthews’ work – is quite obviously not extraordinary evidence in support of their claimed ‘independent’ discoveries of Matthews’ prior-published discovery of the natural process of selection.

    *For the published proof of just how much of Matthews’ unique and original 1831 ideas and content Darwin and Wallace replicated see e.g.: (Sutton 2014; Dempster (1995); and Dawkins, in Bryson (ed) 2010.

    Like

    • Dysology says:

      Moreover, the New Data greatly highlights the anomaly of Darwin’s and Wallace’s supposed ‘independent discoveries’ of Matthews’ ‘natural process of selection’ . According to Kuhn (1970 p. 62) the characteristics of paradigm changing discoveries include the:

      ‘… previous awareness of an anomaly, the gradual and simultaneous emergence of both observational and conceptual recognition, and the consequent change of paradigm categories and procedures often accompanied by resistance.’

      All Kuhn’s elements of paradigm change in science are to be found in the story of Matthew, Darwin and Wallace. There is the anomaly of Darwin’s and Wallace’s ‘immaculate conceptions’ (independent discoveries) of Matthew’s prior published discovery. There is the new BigData ID hi-technology facilitated observation that influential naturalists, known to Darwin and Wallace, in fact did read, and cite, Matthew’s book pre-1858, which represents an original, anomaly highlighting, paradigm shifting, discovery of a great paradox in the history of the discovery of natural selection. Finally, there is the fact that the change of paradigm to Darwin and Wallace having been more likely than not influenced by Matthew’s prior-published work long before 1858, and the new research procedures I used to bring it into existence, are meeting resistance from those still wedded to the old ‘majority view’ of Darwin and Wallace as independent discoverers. See for example Dr Mike Weale’s position paper on my discovery of the New Data. https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/opinions/matthews-influence/ on this site.

      Every criticism in it , and other criticisms of it from others, has been respectfully rebutted,in my opinion, by reference to reason and the newly discovered paradigm changing facts .http://patrickmatthew.com/Darwinist%20Defences%20Examined.html

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dysology says:

        So, to conclude:

        Progress in search engine technology, combined with Google’s Library Project of over 30 million searchable books and other publications, has transformed the anomaly of Darwin’s and Wallace’s claimed dual independent discoveries of Matthew’s prior-published original ideas from a mere vexation into a crisis in the history of scientific discovery.

        The issue of Patrick Mathew’s priority over Darwin and Wallace for his own prior-published and cited discovery is not something that the history of scientific discovery can ethically or sensibly ignore if it is to be of any use in helping us to understand how the discovery of natural selection occurred. Such knowledge is important, because it is fundamental in developing ways to increase the chances of making other great discoveries in the future.

        Like

      • Dysology says:

        Technological progress in internet search engine technology facilitated original Big Data research in Google’s Library Project of over 30 million searchable books and other publications. This research led to game-changing discoveries, which have transformed the unique anomaly of Darwin’s and Wallace’s claimed dual independent discoveries of Matthew’s prior-published original ideas. That old anomaly was changed by the New Data in 2014 from a vexation into a crisis of credulous deifying Darwinist belief in a double occurrence of paradoxical immaculate conceptions by Darwin and Wallace, miraculously occurring as each now logically must, whilst they were surrounded by naturalists they knew, who influenced them, and whose minds were fertile with Matthew’s original work, having read and then cited his 1831 book decades before Wallace (1855), Darwin and Wallace (1858) and Darwin (1842, 1844 and 1859) replicated the original ideas and explanatory examples within it.

        A bombshell in the history of science is that new disconfirming facts bust 155 years of credulous Darwinist mythmongering. The fallout of knowledge contamination now debunks previous versions of the discovery of natural selection, because Matthew’s original ideas, in fact, were read and cited by at least seven naturalists, four known to Darwin and two to Wallace, decades before Darwin (1860) deliberately lied when he claimed no naturalist had read them before 1860, and then later lied again (Darwin 1861) by claiming they were read by no one at all. Darwin is proven a liar, because Matthew (1860) had earlier told him in published print about two naturalists who had read his book before 1859.

        Consequently, the issue of Patrick Mathew’s priority over Darwin and Wallace for his own prior-published and cited discovery is not something that the history of scientific discovery can ethically or sensibly continue to choose to ignore if it is to be of any use in helping us to understand how the discovery of natural selection occurred. Such knowledge is important, because it is fundamental in developing ways to increase the chances of making other great discoveries in the future.

        Like

      • Dysology says:

        The now debunked Darwinist pseudo-scholarly version of the history of the discovery of natural selection is about turning fallacious statements, made by their namesake, into unshakable truths through the power of institutions and the passage of time. Here.

        Like

      • Dysology says:

        On why the Royal Society, Linnean Society and British Museum of Natural Histroy are all proven to be nought but Darwin Glee Clubs: http://dysology.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/the-royal-society-is-nought-but-darwin.html

        The shame of it!

        Like

  31. Glad to see that the two of you haven’t gone static on me while I was gone. I’ve been painting the interior of our house, remodeling two bathrooms, trading out furniture with new, building a work shed in my back yard, and now hosting my in laws from up state New York for two weeks. I’ve read the new postings here and glad to be seeing some progress in the word being spread. though I fail to understand the process of conversion taking so long for Dr. Weale. He reminds me of a horse I had once. Generally a very good horse ( I don’t have a good donkey story this time ) but prone to be very skittish about crossing small trickles of water. I was once racing a friend of mine across one of his native grassland pastures in South Dakota and was leading about 5 lengths after about a !/4 mile when we came to a small streamlet that ran down to the Missouri River. It was only about a foot deep and maybe two feet wide. Rusty smelled it coming up and started to turn parallel to the streamlet and fought me furiously from turning him to jump across it.. still going almost full out he lowered his head and put on the brakes and sent me flying across the stream. I won’t go into detail about my corrective method that I used but it only took once to get his attention and I never had to repeat it again. Crossing water was the only issue I ever had with him. I guess metaphorically Dr. Weale has a problem getting his feet wet.

    Like

    • mikeweale says:

      Hi Howard, nice to hear from you. While you been fixing up your house I’ve been doing some DIY of my own on the PMP website. I’ve added info for Matthew’s “Other Works” here: https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/matthew-and-politics/. And I’ve added info from Matthew’s extensive newspaper correspondences here: https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/newspaper-articles/. I’ve got as far as 1864, so it’s still work in progress.

      I’m very happy with my position on the Matthew plagiarism issue. I hope one day I’ll be able to convert you and Mike to my point of view, although by now I’ve come to accept that’s unlikely to ever happen.

      Like

      • I’m open to having my mind changed Mike.

        Have you got any new data?

        You could try by explaining why The “Blessed Virgins Darwin and Wallace allegorical analogy” is not a perfect explanatory device for showing Darwinists that they now (in light of the New Data that 100 per cent disproves the 155 year old “no naturalist read it credulous Darwiinist myth – started by Darwin in 1860) hold irrational credulous beliefs on a par with the holy Roman Catholic miracle belief in St Mary’s immaculate conception of Jesus of Nazareth.

        SEE: https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=22935 on the Blessed Virgin’s Darwin and Wallace analogy.

        So let’s have an open minded hard fact-led debate.

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        I’m also open to having my mind changed too, Mike. Have you got any new data? Data that’s new to me, that is.

        Like

      • Yes I have some more new data Mike, But I won’t be sharing it before it comes out in a peer reviewed paper.

        However, no new data whatsoever is required for you to answer my question and so begin the debate.

        The new data, which I uniquely discovered has already and shared with the world has completely and uniquely demolished the credulous Darwinist belief and 155 year old myth that Matthew’s ideas were unread by anyone known to Darwin and the accompanying myth, also started by Darwin as a deliberate lie in the teeth of hard evidence to the contrary supplied to him by Matthew, that they were unread by any naturalists. That original data is sufficient to raise the question that I asked.

        Perhaps we should begin far more slowly.by establishing some common premises upon which we can all agree.

        From that aim, if you can bear with me, might I begin by asking you : Is there any evidence that 2000 years ago a human female could conceive a child in absence of human sperm?

        Like

      • Yes. I agree also, the answer is no. So we do at least agree on that premises. Please continue to bear with me Mike.

        Secondly, do you agree that St Mary – AKA St Mary of Nazareth – AKA the blessed Virgin Mary (if she ever existed) would, more likely than not, have been surrounded by a number of men known to her – with whom she met – whose testicles (admittedly to some unknown degree of viability, sperm mobility, etc) contained sperm that were potentially capable of ‘fertilizing her’ so that she could conceive a human child?

        Like

      • I agree also Mike. So this is a second premise upon which we agree. Thank you for continuing to bear with me.

        Next, do you agree that if St Mary existed, and if she did conceive and give birth to a baby, that the baby was more likely than not fathered by one of those fertile men who were in her company at some point in time?

        Like

      • OK, so we agree on the above three premises. Next:

        The supposed biblical account of St Mary’s supposed immaculate conception (AKA virgin birth) comes in the main from the so called apostle Matthew’s published account. Now, whilst this is essentially a very poorly (to be charitable) evidenced story (in fact,essentially, unevidenced – I would argue) there is, apparently, no evidence that the author of “The Gospel According to Matthew” (who is, according to whatever point of view on this topic a person might hold, not necessarily to be confused with Matthew the supposed apostle) ever told a deliberate self-serving lie. I took a little trouble to look. I can’t find any such evidence. Neither could I find any evidence that the supposed apostle Matthew ever told a deliberate falsehood either.

        Perhaps, you could bear with me (apologies for the tedium) and do likewise – if only for the benefit of the essential groundwork for the forthcoming debate.

        I think there is is no available evidence that the supposed apostle Matthew, nor the author of the Gospel According to Matthew, also known today as Matthew, ever told a deliberate falsehood. That is my premise.

        Can we tentatively agree, therefore, that – as a non expert on biblical scholarship that there at least appears to you (at least from a mere a cursory check on the Internet) to be no evidence that the claimed apostle, known today as Matthew, nor the author of The Gospel According to Matthew, ever knowingly told a deliberate lie (e.g.. deliberately told a self-serving falsehood)?

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        I won’t check, but I’m happy to accept your assertion that there is no evidence that the writer of the Gospel according to Matthew ever told a lie. This is because there is no evidence about him one way or the other – we know almost nothing about this person, not even his real name.

        Like

      • Yes. I agree with you Mike. I think that’s a fair assessment of whoever wrote the “Gospel According to Matthew”. OK so that’s four premises we agree on so far. I think we will agree the next. But I’m not sure.

        Next, I have a tentative hypothesis that there is no evidence that Patrick Matthew (author of On naval Timber) ever wrote a deliberate falsehood (lie).

        Now I have a question that I need to ask of you, because I believe (based only on what I know) that it’s fair to say that you are probably the World’s leading expert on Matthew’s overall published work. You, after all, are finding and gathering so much of it here on this site – the world’s largest repository of Matthew’s published work.

        Therefore, can you tell us Mike – from what you have found so far of Matthew’s published work. and his private letters sent to Darwin, is there any evidence that Patrick Matthew ever wrote, and had published, or wrote in a private letter, a deliberate falsehood?

        In other words, do you agree with my premise that Patrick Matthew (hereafter just Matthew) never wrote a deliberate falsehood (lie)?

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        Actually yes, I can think of something. In Emigration Fields (1839), Matthew wrote presciently about the possibility of famine in Ireland. As a remedy, Matthew proposed that one million Irish be encouraged to migrate to Texas. See https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/matthew-and-politics/emigration-fields-1839/published-excerpts/. Then in 1861 (https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/short-articles/1861-2/1861j-ageconevol/) and 1862 (https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/short-articles/1862-2/1862e-econevol/) Matthew referred back to this proposal as one of the many examples of his prescience. But this time, Matthew wrote that the intended destination he’d written about was California, not Texas.

        It seems unlikely to me that this was a mistake of memory. Emigration Fields was his own book, and I expect that he dwelt on these examples of his prescience quite a lot. I’m therefore minded to think this was a deliberate rewriting of his prediction (a “lie”, if you will) because recent history would have made the prospect of a British California an even greater prize than a British Texas. Another possible reason is that California remained under Mexican rule for a much longer time than Texas, and thus in retrospect it would again made more sense to send the Irish emigrants there (since one of Matthew’s plans was to strengthen ties with Mexico).

        Like

      • That’s very interesting Mike.

        I notice that in Emigration Fields that Matthew in fact did recommend settlement of California (on page 72) he wrote [minus his punctuation]:

        ‘These lands from California to Analaska from their extreme remoteness have been nearly forgotten of late years excepting by a few Russian and United States vessels which resort to these shores for the valuable furs of the sea otter obtained from the natives by barter Several lodgments have however been effected by the Russians from Kamts chatka in the more northerly parts which are held as Fur stations and as nuclei of future extension of territory Settlements have also been attempted by the British and by the United States people to the southward but without success from the inadequacy of the means employed The country is however so extremely desirable to Britain as an emigration field that a lodgment should be effected ..’

        I tried reading the specific two articles you provided references for but they seem very blurry to me (probably my eyesight) – I’m guessing – from what you write – that somewhere in them Matthew is making very specific false claims about Irish settlers and his prior recommendation (specifically in his book Emigration Fields) that they – specifically he Irish – be settled in California (as opposed to Texas, which as you oint out correctly was his original specific proposal for the Irish in Emigration Fields)? Could you confirm please?

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        Yes Mike, that is indeed what I’m saying. If the text in the original scanned version is blurry, you can also read the full text in transcribed form by scrolling down to the bottom of the webpage links I give up. In both articles, Matthew writes that “British California” (not “British Texas”) would have been ours if his proposed scheme (of Irish emigration) had been carried out.

        There’s another odd thing, which is that he writes that he proposed his scheme 8 years before the Irish famine, when in fact Emigration Fields was published in 1839, 6 years before the Irish famine. I don’t think Matthew is deliberately misleading in this case, but I do find this time gap odd.

        Like

      • I’ve now read both articles Mike

        I don’t see anywhere in those articles where Matthew writes that he proposed California as a specific emigration field for the Irish. We know in his book that he proposed Texas specifically for the Irish. In the articles you provide links to he mentions Mexico and we all know the politics of the time regarding the wars and the history of boundary changes (legislation and treaties etc) between Texas and Mexico regarding territory.

        The Irish were then British and Matthew (on page 72 of Emigration fields) proposed California as an emigration field for the British. So, as far as I can see, he fails to specifically mention Texas a second time in his articles. I’ve tried but for the life of me I can’t see a lie in those two articles.

        Given that Matthew did very forcefully (in Emigration Fields) propose California for the British (which includes the people of Ireland) can you please quote the sentences from each of those articles that you see as a lie please? I’ve really tried – but for the life of me I don’t see a lie.

        I must be missing what you have found in the text. Perhaps it’s bias on my part.

        Reasonably, the test of a lie should be the legal one. Therefore, can you please show (quote Matthew’s lying sentence/s) where a person could have stood and used them to call Matthew a liar and not been successfully sued for slander- or written that he was a liar and not been sued, successfully, for libel?

        Like

      • Meanwhile, the 6 versus 8 years issue seems very trivial and inconsequential as a falsehood (deliberate or not that would have self-served Matthew). As numbers – these are very close and very similar in appearance – ‘six’ could well be a printers typo in the the later document. Matthew would (of course) have hand written his manuscript and may have used the numeral rather than words. If so, the numeral 6 – handwritten as a numeral as opposed to words – looks a lot like 8 sometimes. Alternatively, there may be another article by Mathew (pre-1839) waiting to be discovered.

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        I agree with you about the difference between 6 and 8 years.

        I disagree with you about the “British California” thing. My view is that Matthew was deliberately trying to mislead the readers of this article, by stating that his “scheme of emigration” (he is specially referring to his scheme to alleviate the threat of famine to the Irish) would have given Britain a “British California”. I agree he is not technically lying. But I do think he is misleading the reader, and he has a motive for doing so. Even in 1839, his proposed scheme of moving the Irish to a Mexican-held Texas was out of date – Texas had fought itself free of Mexican control in 1836. So he moved the prize from Texas to California, and pastes over the fact that he had originally proposed the former.

        Interestingly, the situation is the exact opposite with Darwin’s line “nor apparently any other naturalist, had heard of Mr. Matthew’s views” in his reply to Matthew in 1860 (https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/matthew-and-darwin/gardeners-chronicle/21-april/). Here, what he writes is literally untrue, but the context is everything. He has no motive – if lots of people had, in fact, heard of Matthew’s views then they would have written in, perhaps publicly to the Gardeners’ Chronicle, to say so, and Darwin would have looked a fool. The line makes perfect sense if we interpret it to mean that, as far as Darwin was concerned, no naturalist had heard of Matthew’s views, because if they had they would have written about it or told him about it during the many years he researched for his book, or they would have told him about it in the 5 months since Darwin had “gone public” with the publication of his book, and before Matthew’s letter appeared in the Gardeners’ Chronicle.

        Lies or falsehoods are not very informative on their own. The context and motivational landscape within which they appear is crucial. In this case, I hold Matthew more culpable for deliberately misleading his readership than Darwin for being technically false in what he writes, but for which I believe there is a perfectly innocent explanation.

        I might add that if the tables were reversed, and this was Darwin not Matthew switching the destination of his proposed Irish emigration, you would be all over this story as an example of him being a deliberate fraud and a cheat.

        Like

      • Mike,

        I’ve looked and still don’t see a lie. You write about a technical lie?- I’m not at all sure what that might sensibly mean.

        Matthew proposed California as an emigration field for the British, he exactly said so in his book on page 72- and was the whole book not a scheme for emigration? That’s how I interpret it. Not just a scheme for the Irish but a scheme that included the Irish in with the British. So where is the lie? As far as I see it, he simply never mentioned Texas in the articles, but did so in his 1839 book.. The fact he never is not a lie because he did recommend California for the British. And the Irish were then (North and South) all British. So he wrote the truth. And nothing he wrote was written with an intention of robbing anyone else of their prior discovery. He was, however, bragging.

        You are right, Darwin’s case is the opposite.

        Darwin’s lies (1 in the Gardener’s Magazine 1860)) the lie he told that no naturalist had read Matthew’s book was a honker of a self serving lie designed to “keep Matthew down” – because Matthew had already informed him that the famous Linnean Society member and editor of the Magazine of Natural history and botanist polymath John Loudon had reviewed it.

        This Darwin lie was designed to excuse himself for replicating Matthew’s prior-published work and was told as a self-serving excuse in order to make it look like Matthew’s fault for being obscure and unread – which he clearly was not (2) Darwin’s second lie was once again deliberately told audaciously in the teeth of facts supplied by the man whose work he replicated and whose hypothesis he had call ed his own without citing Matthew the originator. This time, in his second (1860) letter in the Gardener’s Chronicle Mathew told Darwin about yet another (unnamed this time) naturalist who had read but feared teaching his ideas for fear of pillory punishment. Despite now having been told directly of two naturalists who did read Matthew’s book and its heretical ideas on natural slection (that others feared even lecturing on) Darwin lied when he wrote to the naturalist Quatrefages de Bréau (April 25, 1861 ) and claimed no one at all had read Matthew’s book. (3) Darwin continued the very same lie from the third edition of the Origin of Species onward.

        So powerful and convincing was Darwin’s great self serving priority robbing lie that influential Darwinists such as Gavin de Beer trumpeted it as the truth – hence credulously continuing Darwin’s selfish corruption of the history of the discovery of Natural Selection:

        Sir Gavin de Beer (FRS) wrote in the Wilkins Lecture for the Royal Society (de Beer 1962 on page 333):

        “…William Charles Wells and Patrick Matthew were predecessors who had actually published the principle of natural selection in obscure places where their works remained completely unnoticed until Darwin and Wallace reawakened interest in the subject.’

        Obviously that is absolute nonsense. Nonsense caused by Darwin’s great lies and by credulous belief in them without bothering to check the facts.

        Mike – regarding your belief in your ability to read my mind as to whether I would call Matthew a liar (were he Darwin) is hardly worth responding to as I cannot see where that will lead us that will serve any use. Suffice to say I am not at all averse to questioning Matthew’s honesty. You might remember that I did write that I believe he plagiarized some ideas from others – see: https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=22798%2c22798

        So here we do not agree with my premise that Matthew never told a lie. You do however, agree that Darwin lied.

        You write that context is everything. I totally agree.

        The context of Darwin’s lie was told by him to defend himself when outed in public by Matthew for replicating Matthew’s prior-published discovery without citing it. As to whether or not others would have written to defend Matthew I have dealt with that in depth with regard to – amongst other factors in play – who was alive and dead by then – who we newly know had actually read Matthew’s (1831) book (because I uniquely discovered they had actually cited it pre 1858) Here: https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=22693

        I think this means that on the question of whether or not Darwin was a liar we both agree he was. On the question of whether or not Matthew was a liar you think he was some kind of liar but not technically a teller of a lie – whatever you mean by that I’m afraid not sure. Perhaps you mean he not as honest as he could have been? If so, I agree. Because I do think there is sound evidence that Matthew took the ideas of others and never cited them as he should have – see above link in this reply-comment. Earlier, I once thought Matthew must have lied when he claimed not to have read certain books. But on a second reading I think he was not claiming not to have read them: http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/matthew-liar.html

        So – it’s settled here (I think it is) – you disagree with my premise that Matthew never told a lie.

        Moving on:

        I also have a another premise (100% supported by the independently verifiable published literature) that Darwin lied about Matthew’s book and ideas not being read by any other naturalists. You have agreed with that premise.

        Moving on again:

        Next premise:

        I have a premise that Darwin’s and Wallace’s claimed independent replication of Matthew’s original ideas, whist meeting and corresponding with (Darwin) and having a paper published in a journal edited by (Wallace) those who had read and then cited Matthew’s book containing them is an anomaly in the history of scientific discovery. I hold this ‘Darwin and Wallace replication anomaly premise’ because I have been unable to discoverer anything of the same kind happening in the history of scientific discovery.

        I do not think a single other case exists in the entire history of scientific discovery of someone who was not proven a fraudulent plagiarizer who knew personally and communicated with and was assisted by others who had read the work they replicated and then claimed to have discovered the same ideas independently of the prior publication of those by their originator. Do you agree with this premise Mike?

        Like

      • Meanwhile, we have established here – on a website that is the only repository in the world of Matthew’s massed work – that there appears to be no evidence whatsoever in the literature that Matthew had a reputation of any kind for being a liar when he wrote those two 1860 letters in the Gardener’s Chronicle to inform Darwin of two naturalists who had read his work before Darwin and Wallace replicated hi ideas without citing him in 1858 and Darwin did likewise in 1859. One of the naturalists Matthew told Darwin about was Loudon.

        Loudon, Matthew explained, had reviewed his 1831 book, and in that review he wrote that Matthew appeared to have possibly written something original on what he (Loudon) called “the origin of species” no less. And Matthew informed Darwin in his second 1860 letter of another (unnamed) naturalist who Matthew said was well aware of his discovery of natural selection but feared teaching it for fear of being pilloried.

        The point of this comment being, that it supports the premise that Darwin had no reason for not taking Matthew (a gentleman and nobleman) at his word. And no reason, therefore, not to investigate the claims of the true “Originator” of natural selection about others who read his work. Let’s call it the ‘Pre-1860 Matthew never wrote a lie premise’

        Do you agree with this premise Mike?

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        Yes Mike, I agree with your last premise. Indeed, I’m prepared to accept that Matthew never told a deliberate falsehood (that we know of). I think he misleads the reader in letters of 1861 and 1862, but he does so without telling a falsehood.

        I think Darwin did write something that was false in his letter of 1860. What I’m not prepared to accept, at this stage, is that he did so for dishonest reasons – I think there are plausible innocent reasons for why he ended up writing something that was false – so for that reason I do not agree with you that he “lied”, as that implies a deliberate intention to deceive.

        Like

      • Mike

        So you think – despite the fact Matthew very clearly and very pointedly – and at length – told him otherwise – on two occasions and in print – that Darwin told an accidental falsehood when he told the world that the exact opposite was the case and despite the fact that that his correspondence proves he was absolutely obsessed with having priority for the discovery of natural selection?

        Obviously the fact that other people read his book and commented upon his discovery of natural slection was very important to Matthew. That’s why he wrote those letter and had them published in the Gardener’s Chronicle. For Darwin a man obsessed with Matthew’s prior published hypothesis that nine times in the Third Edition (an every edition thereafter) of the Origin of Species he referred to it as “my theory” – which he clearly knew it wasn’t after 1860 proves him a liar. Unless he was – perhaps with he assistance of the spiritualist Wallace – engaged with a spirit medium in automatic writing he obviously deliberately and self-servicing-wrote a priority stealing deliberate lie.

        Let’s allow history to decide the truth of the matter Mike. Meanwhile, you do not agree with my Darwin was a liar premise because – as you explain – you think Darwin three times (no less) wrote innocent self-serving complete falsehoods – despite the absolute 100 percent verifiable fact the Darwin;s falsehoods were false because they are the exact opposite of what Matthew (the originator of the theory Darwin replicated – without citing Matthew) actually informed told him, and despite the 100 percent verifiable fact that those Darwin falsehoods corrupted (so very conveniently for Darwin) the history of the discovery of natural slection – leading credulous Darwinists to parrot the claptrap – that Matthew’s work went completely unread as the truth for 155 years. And actually you really do believe Darwin did not lie even though in his second letter Matthew (1860), in the Gardener’s Chronicle, very pointedly and at length corrected Darwin in great detail for writing the first falsehood (which was also the opposite of what he had been told about Loudon in Matthew’s first letter) than no naturalist had read his book.

        Moving on

        So what of the ‘Darwin and Wallace replication anomaly premise’ Mike? I have been unable to discoverer anything of the same kind happening in the history of scientific discovery.

        To recap-

        I do not think a single other case exists in the entire history of scientific discovery of someone who was not proven a fraudulent plagiarizer who knew personally and communicated with and was assisted by others who had read the work they replicated and then claimed to have discovered the same ideas independently of the prior publication of those by their originator.

        Do you agree with this premise Mike?

        Like

      • Meanwhile, I do think it important to recap on the facts of what Matthew told Darwin and then how Darwin followed what Matthew informed him of by writing the exact opposite (in his own favour) .

        What follows is the pertinent timeline of what was written by both men. I am saying here that Darwin lied but Mike Weale is claiming Darwin did not lie. I think the facts of Darwin’s lies should be clearly stated and the data clearly presented. Here it is:

        1. In 1860 in his first letter to the Gardener’s Chronicle, to claim his rightful priority for his prior published the hypothesis of natural slection that Darwin replicated without citing him. Matthew wrote that his book had been reviewed by the famous naturalist botanist John Loudon.

        Loudon’s review (1832): of Matthew’s (1831) book contained the following sentence:

        ‘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.’

        Matthew (1860) in his first letter to the Gardener’s Chronicle wrote:

        ‘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. …’

        Loudon was a famous naturalist, Yet in his 1860 reply to Matthew’s 1860 letter Darwin wrote the exact opposite to what Matthew had just told him. See point 2, immediately below, for the hard evidence.

        2. In his 1860 letter in the Gardener’s Chronicle Darwin’s first lie on this specific matter was written by his own hand:

        ” I think that no one will feel surprised that neither I, nor apparently any other naturalist, had heard of Mr Matthew’s views, ”

        To necessarily repeat the point already made, Darwin wrote the exact self-serving opposite to what Matthew had just informed him.

        3. Naturally concerned that Darwin was denying the truth about the fact that his book had been read by other naturalists, and its unique ideas understood, Matthew (1860) then very clearly, in his second letter in the Gardener’s Chronicle – by way of reply to Darwin’s blatant self-serving lie – wrote:

        ‘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,..’

        4. Despite being initially informed that the naturalist Loudon had read and reviewed his book Darwin lied in his letter of reply in the Gardener’s Chronicle by writing that no naturalist had read Matthew’s ideas. As can be seen in point 3, above, Matthew then corrected Darwin by informing him in detail of yet another naturalist who had read his original ideas on natural slection but was afraid t teach them for fear of pillory punishment. So what did Darwin do next? He wrote to a famous and influential naturalist with the self serving lie that no one at all had ever read Matthew’s book! To the famous French naturalist Quatrefages de Bréau in his letter of April 25, 1861 Darwin wrote

        : “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.”?

        5. Then in 1861 in the Third Edition of the Origin of Species – and in every edition thereafter, Darwin continued that exact same great self serving lie about Matthew’s book, and who read the ideas in it. That lie corrupted – for 155 years – the history of the discovery of natural slection. Darwin (1861) wrote in the third edition of The Origin of Species -despite being informed of the exact opposite by Matthew only the year before:

        . Unfortunately the view was given by Mr. Matthew very briefly in scattered passages 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,’ on April 7th, 1860.’

        Small wonder then that Darwin’s Darwinist’s – being named for their lying hero – failed to check the truth of the matter. By way of example, Sir Gavin de Beer – Royal Society Darwin Medal winner – wrote Darwin’s great lie as the “gospel according to Darwin” truth: And – to necessarily repeat the point thrice made – until I personally put the record straight not a single person corrected his award winning credulous Darwin deification claptrap:

        “…William Charles Wells and Patrick Matthew were predecessors who had actually published the principle of natural selection in obscure places where their works remained completely unnoticed until Darwin and Wallace reawakened interest in the subject.’

        Conclusion:

        Darwin was a self-serving deliberate liar. The record is independently verifiable. Darwin wrote the very opposite to which he had twice been informed was the truth by the very trustworthy man whose ideas he replicated without citing their originator’s prior publication of them. And Darwin wrote those falsehoods – because …just as de Beer’s ludicrously acclaimed text goes to prove- they were needed to wrestle priority away form the true biological father of natural selection.

        Mike Weale does not think Darwin lied. I say it is as clear as the long nose on the end of Pinocchio’s lying face that Darwin did – and the independently verifiable facts above absolutely prove it.

        Like

      • Had the powerfully connected and much revered Charles Darwin , responded in writing, in the Gardeners Chronicle and from the third edition of the Origin of Species onward, for the historical record with honestly, to the correct and honest information supplied by Matthew – as opposed to writing the opposite to it in a series of deliberate Matthew suppressing lies – the history of discovery of natural selection would be a veracious record and it would be called Matthewism, not Darwinism. Clearly, today, Darwinists, named for Darwin, have a professional academic and ‘Darwin Industry’ interest in saving face and seeking, wormingly, to wriggle-deny by any embarrassing means at their desperate disposal, this obvious – fact-led truth. The shame of it.

        Like

      • Mike – So – to recap:

        1. The purported “Blessed Virgin” St Mary of Nazareth (if she ever existed) has never been proven to have told a deliberate lie (deliberate falsehood). But it is, rationally, more likely than not that (if he ever existed) St Mary’s purported son (Jesus of Nazareth) was fathered, not by “immaculate conception” with the deity that the Christians call God, but by one of the human men who surrounded Mary – with whom she met and had face-to-face contact.

        2. The alleged Christian Biblical apostle Matthew (if he ever existed) has never been proven to have told a deliberate lie. And the author of the Christian biblical ‘Gospel According to Matthew’ (whoever that was) has never been proven to have told a deliberate lie (deliberate falsehood).

        3. Darwin and Wallace each claimed to have discovered Patrick Matthew’s (1831) full prior published hypothesis of natural selection independently (immaculately conceived) of Matthew’s prior published work. They did this despite the fact that I uniquely discovered – and published in my book ‘Nullius in verba: Darwin’s greatest secret’ that 25 people cited Matthew’s book before Darwin and Wallace (1858) replicated the ideas and examples in it that both men knew, and that Darwin and Wallace were assisted and influenced by, influential naturalists who had both read and then cited Matthew’s (1831) book pre-1858.

        4. Darwin (1860 and 1861 – to his death) wrote and had published his own fabricated falsehoods when he claimed that no naturalists, indeed no one at all, had read Matthew’s (1831) book before Matthew informed Darwin about it in 1860 in the Gardener’s Chronicle. Darwin – in fact (following from what Matthew informed him) wrote the absolute opposite to what Matthew (1860_ [ see my comment above] twice informed him in print in the Gardener’s Chronicle. Because Matthew (1860), on two separate occasions informed Darwin – indeed corrected Darwin once in print in the Gardener’s Chronicle in 1860 on Darwin’s first published claim that no naturalists had read Matthew’s book) . Despite Matthew informing him otherwise – about Loudon reviewing his book and an unnamed naturalist who feared teaching Matthew’s unique discovery of natural selection, Darwin told a lie when he wrote to the famous French naturalist Quatrefages de Bréau in 1861 that “no single person ever noticed the scattered passages in his book”. Darwin further lied when – again writing the exact opposite to what Matthew had twice informed him in print – he continued his lie about Matthew’s ideas being unread fro the third edition of the Origin of Species (1861) onward. Moreover, Darwin’s lies about no single person reading Matthew’s (1831) unique ideas on the origin of species have been taken as the literal truth by Darwinists for the past 155 years. By way of example, see Sir Gavin de Beer (in de Beer’s Wilkins Lecture for the Royal Society (de Beer 1962 on page 333) . I am claiming, from the published evidence, that Darwin deliberately lied. But you claim he did no such thing.

        5. There is no known evidence (on examination of his extensive publication) that Matthew ever deliberately misled anyone about anything. Hence, Darwin – in 1860 – had no reason for not taking his word as a gentleman about everything he wrote.

        6. St Mary was surrounded by – and communicated with them and was in the presence of – men whose testicles were more likely than not fertile (at least to some unknown degree) with sperm.

        7. Both Darwin and Wallace communicated (pre 1858) – and Darwin met and physically associated with (Chambers) with men who had read and cited Matthew’s (1831) book. Selby edited the journal that published Wallace’s Sarawak paper and sat on several scientific committees with Darwin – and even had Darwin’s father and Darwin’s great friend Jenyns as house guests. Hence, pre 1858, Darwin and Wallace were in communication with (and Darwin in the physical presence of ) men whose brains were fertile (admittedly to some unknown degree) with the ideas published in Matthew’s (1831) book.

        8. No single other case exists in the entire history of scientific discovery of someone who was not proven a fraudulent plagiarizer who knew personally and communicated with and/or was assisted by others who had read the work they replicated and then claimed to have discovered the same ideas independently of the prior publication of those by their originator.

        Mike – do you agree the veracity of the points 1- 8 in this comment?

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        No Mike, I do not.

        Like

      • Could please, possibly, be a little more specific, Mike, about which of the 1 – 8 points you disagree with in my discussion comment above and then explain why?

        Like

      • Meanwhile, to cut to the chase – if you will kindly forgive the lengthy argument in its final form – ( I thought it might help now to finish my main argument of the case we have been debating here) – what I have been debating with you amounts to the following argument. I look forward to you hard evidenced reply to this hard and independently verifiable new evidence-led argument.

        You will find that this comment has a new conclusion – that is the answer to my original opening point in this discussion.

        ‘On Why Darwinist Immaculate Conception Miracle Beliefs are Even More Irrational than those Held by Christians’:

        Influential professional Darwinists, such as Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer, are actively engaged in bragging that they are more rational than those who believe in miracles – such as the one about St Mary’s supposed virgin birth.

        As a social scientist and confirmed atheist, who thinks Natural Selection is the best answer we have for the existence of all species, and and extinction of certain species., I think that the hypocrisy and credulousness of so many atheist Darwiniists – and the accepted ‘majority view’ that they are right about Darwin and Wallace independently discovering Patrick Matthew’s (1831) prior published hypothesis of natural selection – makes a laughing-stock of science. I think this, because, contrary to 155 years of newly proven professional Darwinist myth mongering, I have uniquely proven (Sutton 2014) that – as opposed to nine – seven other naturalists read Matthew’s (1831) book containing his original hypothesis of ‘the natural process of selection pre- Darwin’s and Wallace’s 1858 replication. Moreover, three of those naturalists (Loudon, Selby and Chambers) were known to Darwin/Wallace and influenced and facilitated their work on the exact same topic of organic macro evolution.

        To recap from my earlier discussion comment on Darwin being a newly proven liar:

        The facts of Darwin’s lies should be clearly stated and the data clearly presented:

        1. In 1860 in his first letter to the Gardener’s Chronicle, to claim his rightful priority for his prior published the hypothesis of natural selection, which Darwin replicated without citing him. Matthew wrote that his book had been reviewed by the famous naturalist botanist John Loudon.

        2. Incidentally, Loudon’s review (1832): of Matthew’s (1831) book contained the following sentence:

        ‘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.’

        Matthew (1860) in his first letter to the Gardener’s Chronicle wrote:

        ‘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. …’

        Loudon was a famous naturalist, Yet in his 1860 reply to Matthew’s 1860 letter, Darwin wrote the exact opposite to what Matthew had just informed him. See point 2, immediately below, for the hard evidence.

        2. In his 1860 letter in the Gardener’s Chronicle Darwin’s first lie on this specific matter was written by his own hand:

        ” I think that no one will feel surprised that neither I, nor apparently any other naturalist, had heard of Mr Matthew’s views…”

        To necessarily repeat the point already made, Darwin wrote the exact self-serving opposite to what Matthew had just informed him.

        3. Naturally concerned that Darwin was denying the truth about the fact that his book had been read by other naturalists, and its unique ideas understood, Matthew (1860) then very clearly, in his second letter in the Gardener’s Chronicle – by way of reply to Darwin’s blatant self-serving lie – wrote:

        ‘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,..

        4. Despite being initially informed that the naturalist Loudon had read and reviewed Matthew’s book, Darwin lied in his 1860 letter of reply in the Gardener’s Chronicle by writing that no naturalist had read Matthew’s ideas. As can be seen in point 3, above, Matthew then corrected Darwin by informing him in detail of yet another naturalist who had read his original ideas on natural slection but was afraid to teach them for fear of pillory punishment. So what did Darwin do next? He wrote to a famous and influential naturalist with the self serving lie that no one at all had ever read Matthew’s book! To the famous French naturalist Quatrefages de Bréau in his letter of April 25, 1861 Darwin wrote:

        “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.”

        5. Then in 1861, in the Third Edition of the Origin of Species – and in every edition thereafter, Darwin continued that exact same great self serving lie about Matthew’s book, and the ideas in it, being unread. That lie corrupted – for 155 years – the history of the discovery of natural selection. Darwin (1861) wrote in the third edition of The Origin of Species – despite being informed of the exact opposite by Matthew only the year before:

        ‘Unfortunately the view was given by Mr. Matthew very briefly in scattered passages 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,’ on April 7th, 1860.’

        Small wonder then that Darwin’s Darwinist’s – being named for their lying hero – failed to check the truth of the matter. By way of example, Sir Gavin de Beer – Royal Society Darwin Medal winner – wrote Darwin’s great lie as the “gospel according to Darwin” truth: And – to necessarily repeat the point already made – until I personally put the record straight (Sutton 2014) not a single person corrected de Beer’s award winning credulous Darwin deification claptrap:

        “…William Charles Wells and Patrick Matthew were predecessors who had actually published the principle of natural selection in obscure places where their works remained completely unnoticed until Darwin and Wallace reawakened interest in the subject.’

        Darwin was a self-serving deliberate liar. The record is independently verifiable. Darwin wrote the very opposite to veracious facts that he had twice been informed was the truth by the very trustworthy man whose ideas he replicated without citing their originator’s prior publication of them. And Darwin wrote those falsehoods – because …just as de Beer’s ludicrously acclaimed text goes to prove – they were needed to wrestle priority away form the true biological father of natural selection.

        Had the powerfully connected and much revered Charles Darwin , responded in writing, in the Gardeners Chronicle and from the third edition of the Origin of Species onward, for the historical record with honestly, to the correct and honest information supplied by Matthew – as opposed to writing the opposite to it in a series of deliberate Matthew suppressing lies – the history of discovery of natural selection would be a veracious record, and it would be called Matthewism, not Darwinism. Clearly, today, Darwinists, named for Darwin, have a professional academic and ‘Darwin Industry’ interest in saving face and seeking, wormingly, to wriggle-deny by any embarrassing means at their desperate disposal, this obvious – fact-led truth. The pseudo-scholarly shame of it!

        Immaculate conceptions by the liar Darwin and dishonest Wallace

        1. The purported “Blessed Virgin” St Mary of Nazareth (if indeed she ever existed) has never been proven to have told a deliberate lie (deliberate falsehood). But it is, rationally, more likely than not that (if he ever existed) St Mary’s purported son (Jesus of Nazareth) was fathered, not by “immaculate conception” by the deity that the Christians call God, but instead by one of the human men who surrounded Mary – with whom she met and had physical contact over 2000 years ago.

        2. The alleged Christian Biblical apostle Matthew (if he ever existed) has never been proven to have told a deliberate lie. And the author of the Christian biblical ‘Gospel According to Matthew’ (whoever that was) has never been proven to have told a deliberate lie (deliberate falsehood). The Gospel According to Matthew is the main source of the holy Roman Catholic Christian story of St Mary’s supposed immaculate conception.

        3. Darwin and Wallace each claimed to have discovered Patrick Matthew’s (1831) full prior published hypothesis of natural selection independently (immaculately conceived) of Matthew’s prior published work. They each claimed this despite the fact that I have since uniquely discovered – and published in my book ‘Nullius in verba: Darwin’s greatest secret’ – that 25 people actually cited Matthew’s book in the published literature before Darwin and Wallace (1858) replicated the original ‘bombshell’ ideas and examples in it. Moreover, I have also uniquely proved in my book (with newly discovered independently verifiable published evidence) that Darwin and Wallace knew, and that Darwin and Wallace were assisted and influenced by, influential naturalists who had both read and then cited Matthew’s (1831) book pre-1858.

        4. Darwin (1860 and 1861 – to his death) wrote and had published his own fabricated falsehoods when he claimed that no naturalists, indeed no one at all, had read Matthew’s (1831) book before Matthew informed Darwin about it in 1860 in the Gardener’s Chronicle. Darwin – in fact (following from what Matthew informed him) wrote that falsehood after and as the absolute opposite to what Matthew (1860) had twice informed him in print in the Gardener’s Chronicle. Because Matthew (1860), on two separate occasions informed Darwin – indeed corrected Darwin once in print in the Gardener’s Chronicle in 1860 on Darwin’s first published claim that no naturalists had read Matthew’s book. Despite Matthew informing him otherwise – about the famous naturalist Loudon reviewing his book and an unnamed naturalist who feared teaching Matthew’s unique discovery of natural selection having read and understood it, Darwin told a lie when he wrote to the famous French naturalist Quatrefages de Bréau in 1861 about Matthew that “no single person ever noticed the scattered passages in his book”.

        Darwin further lied when – again writing the exact opposite to what Matthew had twice informed him in print – by continued his lie about Matthew’s ideas being unread – from the third edition of the Origin of Species (1861) onward.

        Darwin’s lies about no single person reading Matthew’s (1831) unique ideas on the origin of species have been taken as the literal truth by Darwinists for the past 155 years. By way of example, see Sir Gavin de Beer (in de Beer’s Wilkins Lecture for the Royal Society (de Beer 1962 on page 333) . I am claiming, from the published evidence, that Darwin deliberately lied.

        Loudon went on to edit two of Blyth’s (1855 and 1856) influential papers on organic evolution. Darwin admitted form the third edition of the Origin of Species that Byth was his most valuable and prolific informant.

        5. There is no known evidence (on examination of his extensive publications) that Matthew ever deliberately misled anyone about anything. Hence, Darwin – in 1860 – had no reason for not taking Mathew’s word as a gentleman scholar about everything he wrote about who did read his book before Darwin’s and Wallace’s published dual replication of his prior-published (1831) discovery in 1858.

        6. St Mary was surrounded by – communicated with and was in the presence of – men whose testicles were more likely than not fertile (at least to some unknown degree) with sperm.

        7. Both Darwin and Wallace communicated (pre 1858) – and Darwin met and physically associated with (Chambers) men who had read and cited Matthew’s (1831) book. Selby edited the journal that published Wallace’s Sarawak paper and sat on several scientific committees with Darwin – and even had Darwin’s father and Darwin’s great friend Jenyns as house guests. Hence, pre 1858, Darwin and Wallace were in communication with (and Darwin in the physical presence of ) men whose brains were fertile (admittedly to some unknown degree) with the ideas published in Matthew’s (1831) book.

        8. No single other case exists in the entire history of scientific discovery of someone who was not proven a fraudulent plagiarizer who knew personally and communicated with and/or was assisted by others who had read the work they replicated and then claimed to have discovered the same ideas independently of the prior publication of those by their originator. That makes Darwin’s and Wallace’s claims a dual vexatious anomaly in the history of science.

        9. Wallace claimed that he finally, and independently of anyone, discovered natural selection whilst suffering from Malaria. That makes Wallace’s unique malarial cognitive enhancement claim another vexacious anomaly in the history of scientific discovery. Moreover, Wallace, in his autobiography, doctored the published transcription of one 1858 letter that he sent to his mother. The deletion of key words in Wallace’s transcribed letter concealed the fact that he believed he was owed services and favors from Darwin and his cronies for his role and contribution (in absence and without his permission) to the Linnean Society presentation of his paper on natural selection alongside Darwin’s in 1858.

        Conclusion

        Darwinist belief in their namesake’s and Wallace’s alleged independent discoveries of Matthew’s prior published hypothesis, whilst they were immediately surrounded and associating with men whose brains were fertile with it, is allegorically analogous to Christian belief in St Marry’s miraculous immaculate conception of Christ whilst she was surround by, and associating with, fertile men. Indeed, the Darwinist miracle belief is even more ludicrous, because Darwin and Wallace are proven to have been deliberately dishonest – whereas there is zero evidence that either St Mary, Matthew the apostle, the author of The Gospel According to Matthew, or Patrick Matthew were ever dishonest. Moreover, the Darwinist miracle belief is arguably rendered even more improbable than the Christian version, because Christians believe in only one immaculate conception. Darwinist, however, to their intellectual shame, believe in two!

        The New Data, which I have uniquely discovered, that 100 per cent proves Matthew’s prior publication of natural selection was read by influential naturalists known to Darwin and Wallace and their associates, drags the vexatious anomalies of Darwin’s and Wallace’s claimed dual independent discoveries under the spotlight of probability, ethics, reason, honesty, rationality and veracity as a critical paradox that will lead to a paradigm change in the history of the discovery of natural selection. If not a miracle and if not science fraud, then some kind of Matthewian knowledge contamination (fertilization) of Darwin’s and Wallace’s brains in more likely than not.

        Like

      • Please note: There is a misleading typo in my comment immediately above – It should read “as opposed to none” (my typo has it as “nine”).

        Like

      • I should now add – for the benefit of biased Darwinists:

        The usual response – to the allegorical analogy of “The Blessed Virgins Darwin and Wallace” at this point is along the lines of someone writing or saying: “You have only circumstantial evidence. You have no letter to or from him that proves Darwin was made aware of Matthew before 1860, so your arguments don’t stand up.”

        Such a response in light of the discovery of new data that dis-confirms the Darwinist myth that Matthew’s book went unread by anyone known to Darwin or Wallace, is indicative that such Darwinists might be suffering from cognitive dissonance. because they ask for no such kind of “smoking gun” letter by way of a human admission of paternity of Jesus of Nazareth. The reason they don’t is because immaculate conception when surrounded by men who were fertile, though fertile to some unknown degree, is so highly improbable rationally people don’t need one to know it’s nonsense, because such conception would require a supernatural miracle. So why ask for one in the case of Darwin’s claimed immaculate conception of natural selection, when he too was surrounded by men whose brains were fertile, to some unknown degree, with Matthew’s ideas and great discovery after having read and cited him? Do Darwinists now wish to claim – in light of the data I uniquely discovered – that a 20 year long and repetitive Darwinist mental-contraceptive miracle took place?

        Sorry Darwinists but the game’s up. You had a good run for 155 years. But hard facts trump claptrap in the end.

        Like

      • In fact, every single Darwinist defense to the paradigm change that the New Data brings to the history of the discovery of natural selection can be easily rebutted with facts, reason and ethics. Because biased darwinist defenses simply can’t stand against the powerful New Data: http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/darwinist-defenses-simply-cant-stand.html

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        Hi Mike, I’m currently on holiday and unable to respond to your previous 5 comments. I do feel that you deserve an answer to your request here (https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/leave-a-reply/comment-page-5/#comment-810) for more details on why I disagree with your list of premises here (https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/leave-a-reply/comment-page-5/#comment-806). So my disagreements are as follows:

        In your point (4), I object to the phrase “fabricated falsehood”, as this seems to me to be identical to “deliberate lie”, which is the point over which we are disagreeing.

        Again in your point (4), I disagree with you that the statement of “no single person reading Matthew’s (1831) unique ideas on the origin of species” has “been taken as the literal truth by Darwinists for the past 155 years”.

        I disagree with your point (5). I do think that Matthew was deliberately misleading his readership over the intended destination of his proposed Irish emigration scheme (https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/leave-a-reply/comment-page-5/#comment-788).

        Your point (7). We don’t know for sure that Robert Chambers was the editor who prepared that abridged extract from NTA (https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/on-naval-timber/citations/), although I agree it’s likely.

        Your point (8). I’m not prepared to confirm of deny this point – it would require a huge amount of research to do so.

        Like

      • Let’s knock off one at at a time and one by one the points you disagree with – to keep it simple Mike.

        Are you really honestly saying Mike that the most highly esteemed Darwin Medal winner Sir Gavin de Beer never ever wrote (and was never prolifically cited in the Darwinist literature ever since by Darwinists – who never disagreed with him o this topic) when Sir Gavin de Beer (FRS) wrote in the Wilkins Lecture for the Royal Society (de Beer 1962 on page 333):

        “…William Charles Wells and Patrick Matthew were predecessors who had actually published the principle of natural selection in obscure places where their works remained completely unnoticed until Darwin and Wallace reawakened interest in the subject.’ ?

        Note he writes “completely unnoticed”!

        Please explain why this is not a top Darwinist claiming that Matthew’s book was completely unread before 1858? Really – I write this in kindly and polite good humor – If you have the miraculous talent to be able to read the brain of a dead scientist so as to know he meant something other than that which he clearly wrote I think you should declare it here as an unfair advantage over the rest of us 😉

        Like

      • To save time haggling over wormy intricacies of what “works” might men I should point uout that De Beer could mean either Matthew’s book of 1831 or the original “ideas” in it. His proclamation could easily be taken as “book” But, either way, Sir Gavin de Beer is 100% wrong!

        Loudon (1832) was clearly aware of Matthew’s unique ideas. Selby mentioned them and others amongst the 25 who read and cited it pre 1858 did – including those who condemned Matthew for holding them – such as the reviewer of the United Services Journal.

        So Mike, pleas explain your particular disagreement with reference to the hard facts please.

        By the way, I forgot my manners, I hope you are enjoying your holiday Mike.

        Like

      • Mike – to save time. Let’s really cut to the chase with more data on this de Beer question:

        Editors of the New Scientist are so convinced of the truth of what de Beer wrote that they mention Blyth – whose work came after Matthew’s – and wherein two articles on the topic were published in the Journal edited by Loudon (1831) – who had earlier read Matthew’s 1831 book and commented upon the originality of its ideas on what he referred to as the “origin of species”! Yet the New Society reviewers of de Beer’s Wilkins Lecture make absolutley zero mention of the originator of the full hypothesis – Matthew.

        Most tellingly this New Society review of de Beer’s lecture is most tellingly entitled: “Restoring the credit to Charles Darwin.” https://books.google.co.uk/books id=HcUrZPUYsDkC&pg=PA670&dq=%22de+beer%22+%22wilkins+lecture%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAWoVChMIhOO9n-HGxwIVY7PbCh0kKAar#v=onepage&q=%22de%20beer%22%20%22wilkins%20lecture%22&f=false

        Moving on.. By way of further example, an article (1984) by Oldroyd completely neglects Matthew whilst focusing in great detail on so many who came after him (also replicating his ideas) – the absence of mention of Matthew is astounding. But it would not today be possible – not in light of the New Data, which I discovered that proves Darwin’s friends and influences read Matthew pre 1858. Oldroyd cites de beers 1962 paper without question on what he fallaciously wrote about Matthew’s ideas being completely unread by anyone.

        Oldroyd’s work in question can be found here: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1984HisSc..22..325O&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf

        Even Dempster, the man Richard Dawkins (2010) calls Matthew’s Champion, was misled (note Dempster cites de Beer’s Wilkins lecture in his book). On page 21 of his 1983 book ‘Patrick Matthew and Natural Selection’ even the skeptical Dempster fallaciously wrote – fallaciously in light of what Matthew told Darwin about an unnamed naturalist in his second letter in Gardener’s Chronicle – and erroneously in light of the fact that it is newly discovered (Sutton 2014) outside of book reviews that quite a few others did, in fact, read Matthew’s book, cite it, and mention the original, yet heretical, ideas in it. Dempster wrote:

        “Matthew’s book and its Appendix went unread except by a few reviewers who praised it.’

        NEXT see Ernst Mayr (1982) The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution and Inheritance

        p 499: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pHThtE2R0UQC&pg=PA499&dq=%22patrick+matthew%22+%22read%22+%22darwin%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDcQ6AEwBDgUahUKEwiP6vqA_cbHAhVRStsKHUjGDQs#v=onepage&q=%22patrick%20matthew%22%20%22read%22%20%22darwin%22&f=false

        Mayr is widely proclaimed to be on of the 20th century’s leading evolutionary biologists. He wrote\;

        ‘The person who has the soundest claim for priority in establishing a theory or evolution by natural selection is Patrick Matthew (1790-1874). He was a wealthy landowner in Scotland, very well read and well traveled (Wells 1974). His views on evolution and natural selection were published in a number of notes in an appendix to his work On Naval Timber and Arboriculture (1831). These notes have virtually no relation to the subject matter of the book, and it is therefore not surprising that neither Darwin nor any other biologist had ever encountered them until Matthew bought forward his claims in an article in 1860 in the Gardener’s Chronicle.

        Since biologists include zoologists, botanists, ornithologists, malacologists, naturalists and other specialities – see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biologists., and the Oxford English Dictionary dictionary definition of what constitutes a biologist has it that a biologist is an expert, specialist or student in biology, and the OED also has it that biology is ‘The branch of science that deals with living organisms as objects of study, apart from any utilitarian value they may have, and now comprising more specialized disciplines such as zoology, botany, and bacteriology.’ – then
        Loudon, Chambers, Murphy, Johnson, Selby, Norton and Jameson were most certainly all biologists. Indeed (for what it is worth) Loudon and Selby are listed as such in the Wikipedia page of famous biologists.

        So the highly esteemed Mayr was 100% wrong. I have proven Mayr wrong. My unique research 100 per cent proves that Mathew’s 1831 work in fact was read by other biologists. And Loudon (a biologist) – who everyone seems to have failed to realize was a naturalist (and therefore a biologist) until the publication of my work in 2014, we can be sure definitely read Matthew’s appendix, because he commented upon the original ideas in it.

        Moreover, Mayr – like so many Darwinists – misleads his readers by failing to mention that Matthew’s original ideas on natural slection were not merely contained in the notorious appendix. As the excerpts included in Matthew’s first 1860 letter to Darwin in the Garderner’s Chronicle prove – his ideas on natural selection were also in the main body of his book. And ideas from these were mentioned – albeit briefly – by Selby and Jameson – both can most certainly be deemed to be naturalists and biologists.

        To conclude

        Most highly esteemed leading Darwinists proven 100 per cent wrong by the New Data in ‘Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret’. Because we have de Beer claiming in 1962:

        “…William Charles Wells and Patrick Matthew were predecessors who had actually published the principle of natural selection in obscure places where their works remained completely unnoticed until Darwin and Wallace reawakened interest in the subject.’ ?

        And Mayr claiming in 1982 “…neither Darwin nor any other biologist had ever encountered them until Matthew bought forward his claims in an article in 1860 in the Gardener’s Chronicle.”

        Both are 100 per cent wrong. And both are top Darwinists claiming Matthew’s original ideas on natural selection went completely unread.

        de Beer writes that the ideas were completely unnoticed and Mayr narrows that fallacy down to the narrower fallacy that the ideas were never so much as encountered by a single biologist.

        So Mike – please explain – – in light of the facts and and with reference to them – how can you possibly write:

        “I disagree with you that the statement of “no single person reading Matthew’s (1831) unique ideas on the origin of species” has “been taken as the literal truth by Darwinists for the past 155 years”. ?

        How can you possibly write that in light of the pertinent and independently verifiable newly discovered facts (Sutton 2104) – which prove:

        (1) Matthew’s 1831 book and the pertinent ideas in it (pre 1858) were not simply (as Dempster clearly wrote): “…unread except by a few reviewers who praised it.’
        (2) Mathew’s 1831 book and the pertinent ideas in it (pre 1858) were not simply (as de Beer clearly wrote):”completely unnoticed until Darwin and Wallace reawakened interest in the subject.’ ?”
        (3) Matthew’s 1831 book and the pertinent ideas in it (pre 1858) were not simply unread by any biologists (as Mayr clearly wrote): “nor any other biologist had ever encountered them until Matthew bought forward his claims in an article in 1860.”

        Please explain.

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        Mike, apart from the fact that I am on holiday, so can’t respond at that length, this whole argument over what Darwin really meant by his comments, and how subsequent Darwin historians have chosen to interpret what he wrote, has been covered in detail in a previous exchange between you and I in this “Leave a Reply” section. Your position has not changed on the issue, and neither has mine. Unfortunately, this “Leave a Reply” section has become rather long, and I can’t remember exactly when it was that we had our previous exchange, but if you’re willing to search back then you will find it.

        In a nutshell, I believe the gist of what Darwin meant was something along the lines of: “Matthew’s ideas on natural selection and evolution did not attract the notice of people who mattered – by which he meant the circle of naturalists with whom he corresponded and who formed what one might call the ‘Naturalist Establishment’ at that time”. And I believe that most Darwin historians who have taken an interest in the matter have adopted that interpretation too. I refer you back to our previous exchange for the details of why I think that.

        Like

      • Dear Mike

        I hope your holiday is going well and you are enjoying yourself away form work.

        By way of reply – as part of a debate on the importance of the New Data I have uniquely discovered – from my book ‘Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret’ – I have presented you with the hard and independently verifiable published facts of exactly what Darwin wrote. I have proven what Darwin wrote to be clear lies – being the exact opposite to what Matthew told him. I have presented you with hard published facts that absolutely prove that the World’s leading Darwinists HAVE been claiming that Matthew’s ideas went unread.

        You, Mike have only your convenient mere “beliefs” that Darwin and his Darwinists must have meant something other than which they (being precise scientists in all respects) precisely and clearly wrote.

        A colleague of mine – Andy Sutton – (no relation) very clearly explained just how much your thinking here is comparable to the way Christians self-servingly choose what text from the Bible they want to be metaphor and which the literal truth – according to their needs rather than good and sound scholarship to discover historical veracity. His comments are in the comments section at the end of this blog: https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=22881%2c22881

        This is exactly why the ‘Blessed Virgins Darwin and Wallace’ analogy and the oils on canvas painting by the artist Gabriel Woods, which depicts it, is a near perfect allegorical analogy of hypocritical Darwinist miracle belief: http://patrickmatthew.com/matthew%20art.html in light of the New Data I discovered.

        It appears to me that you are most surely claiming that the clear text written by scientists – which i found and showed you on this website – is metaphor only when you wish it to be, but that other information they write clearly is to be taken on face value – but also only when you wish it to be. That is not good scholarship Mike – not in my considered opinion – and it is no way to hold a scholarly debate. Such palpably biased behavior by Darwinists is one component of the multitude of bias written by Darwnsts that forms “The Patrick Matthew Supermyth”.

        I will be publishing on that and using this data accordingly. And, from that cause,I have archived these published comments accordingly.

        I wish to debate with facts Mike – not to debate about mere self-serving “beliefs”, which are the opposite to the hard evidence.

        From my studies of them as a social scientist, it seems to me that Darwinist mere beliefs are considered by palpably Darwin defying Darwinists as worth believing in the opposite to what is clearly written by scientists to be considered as metaphor only when it serves Darwinists to merely “believe” it to be. I can have that kind of debate with creationists any time Mike. At least when I do they are open and honest about their mere desperate faith in a deity.

        As an atheist and social scientist I have no truck with “belief” as a mechanism for helping humanity to provide a veracious account of the history of the discovery of natural selection.

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        But you do have a truck with “belief”, Mike, as does everyone on this planet. When you reject the hypothesis that Mary conceived Jesus via immaculate conception, you are the rejecting the data that Mary said this is what happened, and you are rejecting the data that Mary, as far as we know, never lied about anything else. You are rejecting these data because of your strong prior belief, based on your experience, that human parthenogenesis is very unlikely.

        Similarly, I am rejecting the hypothesis that Darwin literally meant that no human being ever read Naval Timber, and that subsequent Darwin historians adopted this view, because I have a very strong prior belief that this is very unlikely. Darwin was an intelligent man, and so are most Darwin historians. Adopting such a hypothesis would be patently absurd, something an intelligent person would be very unlikely to do. Since there is a perfectly reasonable alternative hypothesis (that Darwin wasn’t being literal), that is the hypothesis I choose to adopt.

        Like

      • But my reasoning is not based on blind – self serving – belief that flies in face of the hard facts of what was actually written Mike.

        My “belief” is based on the reasonable assumption that what a scientist writes on an important topic in a textbook or peer reviewed article on that topic he/she means precisely as they write it – as apposed to the opposite to what they wrote when to so interpret it as the opposite would serve only my purpose to interpret what someone writes as the opposite to what they actually wrote (which is exactly what you are doing).

        To ask a question: Why don’t I fall into the same “self-serving metaphor trap? The answer is, because I do not hold an irrational belief that I can read the mind of a scientist – who writes very precisely for a living and to do so in order to be accurate and truthful and sincere in order to please peer reviewers and their readership. And because I know that to interpret what someone means as the opposite to what they write – only when it suits my argument to do so – is obviously ludicrous pseudo-scholarship.

        Christians – named for their prophet, who they call “Christ”, – are (I “believe”) patently absurd for believing in the anomalous and paradoxical notion that their “Blessed Virgin Mary” conceived a child with no sperm from a human. In very much the same kind of way, Darwinists – named for their hero Darwin – are patently absurd for believing (now in light of the new data I discovered) that Darwin and Wallace anomalously and paradoxically “independently” conceived Matthew’s prior published hypothesis that was read and cited before 1858 by naturalists that both men knew and had contact with pre-1858.

        And I believe – in light of the evidence in this comments section and elsewhere that the only reason you have anomalously invented this “they never actually meant what they wrote” argument is because the New Data has proven Darwin’s and Wallace’s claims to be ludicrous. And also because, as I have shown, I have completely proven top Darwinists such as Mayr and de Beer to be 100 % wrong in what they wrote about Matthew’s work being unread. Will another Darwinists write such a wrong and absurdly ludicrous thing (write that no one – or no biologist – read Matthews work) following my unique discoveries? Of course not! And that confident prediction Mike 100 % proves my point. The ‘no one read it’ Darwinist claptrap was written before my book Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret was published, but it never will be again. Because, if it is, then peer reviewers and critics will hammer it – as they could not before my unique discoveries were made.

        I have proven in my book of 2014 that before 1858 biologists in fact did read Matthew’s work. The world’s most eminent Darwinist, Ernst Mayr, wrote in a textbook that none did! I have uniquely proven him wrong, because biologists did. You appear not to want to admit that fact Mike.

        Matthew’s book was read by others beyond reviewers of the book. Dempster claimed none did. Before me – no one criticized (on this point of fact) Dempster or Mayr or de Beer. And de Beer, indeed, was ludicrously biased to make his claim that absolutely no one read Matthew’s book pre-1860. But again, de Beer got away with it because he wrote that claptrap before my discovery of the New Data. That will never happen again. If it does the person who writes it will be hammered by other writers. if not by Darwinists then by others.

        Just as Christians hold ludicrously silly beliefs about their namesake, so do Darwinists when it comes to the “plagiarism problem” presented by Matthew. I “believe” your comments here and elsewhere are confirmatory evidence for that assertion Mike.

        Oh and by the way, I once faced down a Nobel Prizewinning physicist – Brian D. Josephson – for making an assertion I do not think he really believed. I “believe” he made his assertion to seek to make a desperate point in a debate he could never win with reference to hard evidence. And so I offered him a cash bet – he declined to take me up on it (reference to the occasion is below – you can read the exchange by clicking it and going to the comments section).

        Will you take up a bet with Mike (say £1000 to keep it sufficiently interesting) that Darwin’s and Wallace’s claims to have independently discovered natural selection – independently of its originator – whilst in communication with those who had prior cited the book containing it – and whose friends and influencers were also in pre 1858 communication with those who had cited it pre-1858 – is an anomaly with no parallel in the history of scientific discovery?

        If so – I bet you £1000 (or more if you wish) that Darwin and Wallace’s claims of independent discovery are a unique anomaly in history of scientific discovery. Do you accept?

        Naturally, I must declare because I do not wish to fleece you, that I’ve taken the trouble to do the research – I’m confident in my bet. So will you now put your money where your pen is?

        The bet I offered a Nobel Laureate Brian D. Josephson to back up his unevidenced arguments with cash can be found here (so you are in “good company” Mike) : https://www.bestthinking.com/articles/energy/new-physics-of-hot-clocking-energy-for-the-excess-heat-attributed-to-cold-fusion-

        Kindest regards. By the way, I am on holiday as well and wrote this – rather appropriately I “believe” -whilst in the middle of a game of boules.

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        Hi Mike, I hope you are enjoying your holiday, and thank you for your kind wishes regarding mine. I hope that writing your previous comment didn’t interfere too much with you winning your game of pétanque!

        The wager you propose would hardly be fair unless you accept a counter-wager – do you know of any case where two scientists both claimed to have independently discovered a scientific idea 27 years after the original, and who were then both subsequently proved to have both independently plagiarised the original? The Darwin-Wallace event may indeed be unique, but that of itself doesn’t help us to decide whether they were telling the truth or not, does it?

        We would also have to spend some time debating and agreeing on which details of the “Darwin-Wallace event” we are seeking to replicate in other examples of scientific discovery. Because of course, every event is unique if you describe it in enough detail.

        One final thing. I don’t think this needs to be said, but, just to be clear, my reasoning isn’t based on “blind – self serving – belief” either.

        Like

      • You avoid the patently obvious point Mike.

        Darwin’s and Wallace’s claimed “independent” replication of a prior published hypothesis whilst each was in contact and communication with others who cited the book containing it is a unique anomaly without parallel of any kind. In a comment above you wrote you were not sure whether it was or not. The pijnt being both Darwin and Wallace were dishonest. Darwin wrote patent lies about Matthew’s book. Wallace dishonestly altered a letter in his autobiography. Moreover, both Darwin and Walllace replicated so much that was uniquely Matthew’s. Reason suggests some kind of “knowledge contamination” is more likely than not.

        If your completely unevidenced belief that Mayr, Dempster and de Beer meant the opposite to what the hard evidence proves they wrote – simply because to take what they wrote at face value makes Darwinists look silly is not a blind belief then what is it Mike? I believe I was being kind to you when I called it a blind belief. Perhaps this will remove the cataract:

        As Matthew (1831, p. vii) so presciently wrote:

        ‘…the man who pursues science for its own sake, and not for the pride of possession, will feel more gratitude towards the surgeon, who dislodges a cataract from the mind’s eye, than towards the one who repairs the defect of the bodily organ.’

        With the greatest respect what exactly is your own unique “belief-vision” that what is written by the worlds leading evolutionary biologists is the opposite to what is so clearly written? Perhaps you have had a Darwinist miracle vision?

        http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/when-clear-statements-of-purported.html

        No my game was not spoiled at all., thank you for asking. My honest companions and I had a fine time. No miracle visions though.

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        All I can do is patiently, calmly, assert that it is you who are missing the point. Even if you were to prove that the “Darwin-Wallace” event is unique, this does nothing to prove one way or the other the question of whether they were lying or not.

        I have another wager to propose for you. I will give you £1000 if you can obtain an email or letter from an established Darwin historian confirming that he or she believes that not one single person, other than Matthew himself, read his published book “On Naval Timber and Arboriculture” in the period between 1831 and 1860.

        Like

      • To make an allegorical point on your apparent miracle Darwinist “reverse vision” translation of silly Darwinists published claims (if the hard facts now make Darwinists and Darwin look silly you choose now to cherry pick what they clearly wrote means the opposite) I would just like to reassure you Mike that the house rules here now make no sense. Because if I insult you – you can decide (believe) I am actually complimenting you. Likewise, on your same reasoning, all plainly written compliments can be taken “believed” by you now to actually be metaphorical insults. Here we enter the realm of what we might call “methodological paranoia”. Which may or may not be taken to mean madness – or stupidity. You decide.

        Similarly: when I tweeted on my Twitter account about your reasoning:
        “Hypocrisy of Darwinists in the face of the hard new evidence for his plagiarism is shameless”,
        I surely must have meant: “Darwinists are not at all hypocritical”. But you can cherry pick the meaning – plain meaning or revered – as you choose. I hope you get my point. Or perhaps you can interpret that as I mean I hope you don’t?

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        Dear Mike, I will continue, patiently and calmly, to explain to you why you are wrong. I am going to proceed by asking you a series of questions, just as you did to me earlier on in this exchange. I would appreciate it if you would reply “yes” or “no”, or at least keep your responses as short as possible commensurate with answering the question asked. Please bear with me on this. So, the first question is the following.

        Do you agree that you wrote here (https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/leave-a-reply/comment-page-5/#comment-831) the following sentence:
        “A colleague of mine – Andy Sutton – (no relation) very clearly explained just how much your thinking here is comparable to the way Christians self-servingly choose what text from the Bible they want to be metaphor and which the literal truth – according to their needs rather than good and sound scholarship to discover historical veracity.”

        Like

      • Mike

        I have only one last comment to write by way of necessarily (it seems) long drawn out patient and detailed reply in what of what you have written above.

        And it is to point out that you have revealed here for all to read that what I have uniquely discovered is highly embarrassing for Darwinists, because it proves them not only wrong but also to be very silly with regards to what they wrote about the readership of Matthew’s 1831 book before 1858. Therefore, in that highly specific context,(please do note the word “context “- I am going to use it a lot in this final comment to you) it is important to you that you deny what was written for a very specific reason by Darwin and then by his most revered Darwinists was meant to be taken literally. You said so much yourself in a comment above.

        The context in which a specific and precise thing is written is crucial to understanding the significance of what was written, precisely why it was written and therefore the importance of writing in the eyes of the author in question and the authors intended readership.

        The context in which a statement is literally made is everything.

        The context in which Darwin’s, de Beer’s, and Mayr’s (amongst other) very precise words are written (why they were written) is the issue.

        And the context in which those precise and most important words were written was one of denying that Matthew influenced anyone with his original ideas on natural selection before 1860. in particular, those ‘absolutely no one read it’ ‘no biologists’ ‘no naturalists’ read it fallacies were deliberately and clearly written in the context of books and articles that denied that Matthew could possibly have influenced either Darwin or Wallace.

        The trouble is that you appear to be not yet aware of the inevitable demise of Darwinists as those trusted by the majority to tell the history of the discovery of natural selection, and so it seems to me that you currently cling on to the newly debunked paradigm of Darwin’s claimed immaculate conception of Matthew’s prior published hypothesis, and you so cling today by making brand new 2015 “Darwinist reverse meaning vision” irrational arguments. These arguments – made by you here Mike – are that what was plainly written in the specific self-serving context of denying Matthew’s influence on Darwin and Wallace is now to interpreted (you presumably wish) by Darwinists – if you get your way (and by anyone else gullible enough to swallow it) – as mere metaphor. You are tying this because the New Data originally revealed in 2014 in Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret makes Darwin and the World’s leading Darwinists look very silly if we accept that they actually meant us to believe literally what they very precisely wrote for very particular self-serving anti-Matthew reason in the context of seeking to deny Matthew’s possible influence on Darwin.

        Other than to patiently and politely and critically write “The shame of it!” there really is nothing else to say here other than good luck with the rotten cherry picking.

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        Dear Mike, I have to say I am both surprised and disappointed at your reply above. The shame of it is that you are now declaring yourself unwilling to debate the issue about which you care so deeply – about whether or not Darwin did indeed plagiarise Matthew. Not only is this a reversal of your previous stance, where you have repeatedly told me of your willingness to debate with me, but it also places you in something of an untenable position. How can you on the one hand accuse Darwinists of refusing to engage with you on this issue, and then on the other hand refuse to debate with me? I have always been willing to debate with you, rationally, politely, patiently and calmly. I am disappointed that you are now refusing to do the same.

        Could you at least do me the courtesy of explaining your reasons for refusing to debate with me? I read through your previous reply very carefully, but I can’t find a single reason expressed there for why you are doing this. In contrast, way back at the start of this thread (https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/leave-a-reply/comment-page-5/#comment-773), you stated “I’m open to having my mind changed Mike”.

        Like

      • Mike it is not possible to hold a rational or useful debate with someone who argues black is white simply because what is plainly white does not suit their aims to be so.

        What is written does not become the opposite of its its plain meaning within the highly specific context in which it is written to make a highly specific point. The context in which Darwin and Mayer and de Beer – and even Dempster and others – made their remakes that Matthew was absolutely, totally and not at all read (by anyone or by biologists) was to make the point that Darwin could not have been influenced by Matthew. The new facts, which I originally discovered, which your behavior reveals you apparently cannot tolerate, prove that now to be a total myth because Darwin and Wallace are newly proven by me to have been influenced, met and corresponded with those who read Matthew’s book before they replicated its big idea and claimed it as their own.

        If I wanted to argue with people who claim white is black I could go to a creationists site. I believe I would meet greater honesty and no more delusion there then here.

        I am reminded by your claim that what is plainly written by top Darwinists in peer reviewed highly esteemed books and articles for a very specific keeping Matthew down for the benefit of a Darwinist agenda was meant to be its opposite of what was plainly and purposefully written by way of the explanation of what Gardner (2010: p. 86) writes of the now widely recognized bias of the historian Arnold Toynbee:

        ‘Toynbee energetically searched for and collected information that supported his convictions while “neglecting or despising” information that did not – and when contrary evidence was too big to dismiss or ignore, he cobbled together ingenious stories that transformed contradiction into confirmation.’

        That daft kind of self-serving ingenious story telling is exactly what you are doing Mike. And that is why it is a waste of time debating with you. I’m interested in facts – not mythologising hard facts with bias in order to cobble together a brand new daft-as-a-brush Darwin worship fantasy tale. Like I said – good luck with such rotten cherry picking.

        I doubt this will help you: http://dysology.org/page13.html but its worth a try. Bye.

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        Dear Mike, very well. As I said before, I’m disappointed by your new stance. But I’m still leaving the door open. If at some point in the future you change your mind, then I for my part will always be willing to engage in an open, frank and above all polite discussion and debate.

        I’m not expecting to change your mind regarding Darwin, but I would consider it a small victory if I could persuade you that it is in fact possible to hold the views I have without being the blind, close-minded deluded person that you deem me. Consider the following series of statements. I think you will agree with me that each one is correct.

        1. On several occasions, you have referred to a colleague of yours, Andy Sutton, as “no relation”. For example, you do so here (https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/leave-a-reply/comment-page-5/#comment-831).
        2. You were not deliberately lying when you referred to Andy as such.
        3. But in fact, it is impossible for you to be “no relation” to Andy Sutton, because all living things on this planet are related to each other. So unless either you or Andy came from another planet, you are both related, even if remotely.
        4. Thus, to describe Andy Sutton as “no relation” is technically a falsehood.
        5. Despite this, it is very unlikely that you will find anyone anywhere who either believes that you were deliberately lying or, alternatively, believes that you were claiming you are literally unrelated to Andy Sutton. Instead, it is much more reasonable to assume that that everyone interpreted your falsehood as meaning “I am not related to Andy Sutton within my immediate family tree. ”. And this, indeed, was the meaning you yourself intended.

        Given that you agree with points 1-5 above, and it is difficult to see how you could dispute them, we can then both agree that here at least is one example where someone (you) wrote something that is literally untrue, but you weren’t deliberately lying and everyone knew what you actually meant.

        Having established this as a case example, I expect we could also both agree that there are other examples where the same principle applies, where the literal interpretation is not the one intended or received: e.g. “there was no-one at the party”, “no-one voted for that candidate”, “no-one went to see that movie”, and, yes, even “no-one read that book”.

        Having established all these as case examples, the question of dispute between us would then be over whether this is what Darwin meant in this particular example, when he said words to the effect of “no-one read Matthew’s book”, and also over whether this is how it has been interpreted by Darwin historians ever since. Now, I’m not expecting you to reverse your belief that Darwin was being literal, nor your belief that this is how Darwin historians have interpreted it. But at the very least, I’m hoping to persuade you that the alternative interpretation, my interpretation, does at least have some sense and precedent in it.

        All the best, Mike

        Like

  32. Nice to hear from you Howard.

    Creationists are now spreading the veracity of the New Data in the story of Matthew, Darwin and Wallace. Darwiists –

    History will probably record, Darwinists, to their pseudo-scholarly shame, as having ignorantly chosen to ignore the New Data, or else to argue it changes nothing – despite the fact that New Data 100% proves their many books and articles wrong on who really read Matthew’s book to be 100% wrong on the topic of Darwin’s and Wallace’s (now mythical) honesty. One leading Darwinist historian (Professor James Moore of the Open University) was- quoted in the Daily Telegraph newspaper for – without bothering himself to so much as even read the book he was commenting on – Semmelweis jerking: “I would be extremely surprised if there was any new evidence had not been already seen and interpreted in the opposite way.”

    Moore’s ludicrously ignorant and daftly biased typical pseudo-scholarly Darwin Glee Club Dysology can be read here:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10859281/Did-Charles-Darwin-borrow-the-theory-of-natural-selection.html

    Small wonder then that creationists have been able to exploit the intellectual niche created by biased Darwinists and are capitalizing on what the New Data means in terms of a paradigm change from the old biased Darwinist mere knowledge belief in the critical paradox of Darwin’s and Wallace’s dual immaculate conceptions of Matthew’s prior published theory to the new hard-fact evidenced paradigm of more likely than not Matthewian knowledge contamination in light of who I discovered and 100% proved (contrary to Darwinist claptrap) in fact did read and cite Matthew’s book before influencing and editing the pre-1858 work of Darwin and Wallace on natural selection.

    This is more confirmatory evidence for The Friozen Donkey Hypothesis https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=22748

    The creationist article to which I refer uses and cites the New Data in my book Nullius in Verba Darwin’s Greatest Secret. The author Dominic Stratham has been in touch with me and has read my book. His article can be found with this reference:’ Stratham, J. (2015) Did Darwin plagiarize Patrick Matthew? JOURNAL OF CREATION 29(2) http://creation.com/journal-of-creation

    Darwinists should be ashamed. But i suspect these frozen Donkeys are incapable of experiencing intellectual shame.The shame of it!

    Like

    • mikeweale says:

      Hi Mike, do you have the text of Stratham’s article you could email me? I have no intention of taking out a subscription to the Journal of Creation.

      Dominic Stratham does have a web article on Matthew, but he does not address the plagiarism question in it. http://creation.com/patrick-matthew

      Like

      • As said Mike the reference to Stratham’s article is: (Stratham, J. (2015) Did Darwin plagiarize Patrick Matthew? JOURNAL OF CREATION 29(2) ,

        As you know, I am an absolute atheist and I rather mock all religions – as I do dysological Darwinists – yet Dominic Stratham purchased my book in full knowledge of my position. Whilst I do fully understand the thinking behind it, I rather object (overall) to people refusing to purchase the work of others on he basis of their own bias, fear, and ‘academic politics’. I’m not saying that’s why you do not wish to pay to read Stratham’s article. I have personally purchased many rather expensive books written by scholars who I quite despise for their profound bias, wilful ignorance, poor scholarship, uninterested lazy- arrogance and consequent dreadful “so called expert” scholarship. But I am proud that those books are in my library. I even have banned books written by the far right. We must, after all, know and try to understand our “enemy”. Must we not? Because, the telling question is: ‘What are the the most valuable books and articles Mike?’ They are, according to Umberto Eco, the one’s that you have not read but need to read. They are most valuable because they contain the information you really need to know. Because, sometimes at least, you need to know what you don’t know. Matthew’s book – containing the full theory of natural selection contained information that Darwin and Wallace really needed to know – because it contained the original hypothesis they later replicated – and their friends and associates did read it before influencing them on the same topic and before Darwin subsequently, fallaciously, and deliberately lied – in the teeth of evidence Matthew (1860) supplied him with of who had read it – when he claimed in 1860 that no naturalist had read it and in 1861 when he wrote that no one had read it! And it contained examples to support Matthew’s hypothesis and it contained Matthew’s Artificial versus Natural Selection analogy of Differences to explain it that Wallace and Darwin both replicated, and it contained the exact same four words that Darwin four world shuffled to name it. Matthew called it – uniquely – “The natural process of selection” – Darwin (uniquely) shuffled Matthew’s four words into the ‘process of natural selection’. I think that proves the value of supposedly “unread” work.

        See a nice little site on Umberto Eco’s anti Library here: http://www.brainpickings.org/2015/03/24/umberto-eco-antilibrary/ – this notion of Eco’s (read via Taleb’s ‘Black Swan’ ) was a great underlying influence for my own drive to undertake research to use the ID method to find the hidden books in the library that prove who really did Matthew’s (1831) book pre-1858.

        I do have a personal pdf copy of Stratham’s article, but I’m afraid Dominic Stratham – who kindly emailed it to me – asked me (quite naturally) not to disseminate it. After all, why should he give his work away for free?

        I can say that his article is 100% factual – contains no fallacies on the topic (as we find rife in the esteemed ‘majority view’ and expensive Darwinist “scholarly” literature) and that it is very well balanced (taking on a far less polemical position than I do on this topic). It seems that (unfortunately) you cannot purchase one copy of the article in question Mike – as it is too recent. Therefore, it looks like a £25 subscription is, unfortunately, the only solution : http://creation.com/journal-of-creation-292.

        Personally, I’d pay it (price of a small round of drinks in London). But that’s just me. I find all ideas on this topic valuable.

        Apart from my own work, Stratham’s article is the first to weigh the New Data and to ask readers to consider the evidence that it is rationally more likely than not that Matthew influenced Darwin. I’ll be citing it in the article I am currently writing on whether or not (and if so why) the rules and conventions of scientific priority have been uniquely flouted in the case of Matthew’s prior published discovery. I will be sending my article to a top peer reviewed sociology journal in the autumn.

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        Fair point Mike, but no, I don’t think £25 is a price worth paying in this case.

        Like

      • Unless you read it, you will never know what is in it – of course. And you can be assured that creationists will be reading it and possibly citing it.

        An “unread article” by a creationist on Matthew is not in your library Mike. Does it matter? Perhaps so – but not as we might at first suppose.

        Maybe, philosophically, so long as you know of its existence (as you now do) you do not have to buy it at all in order for it to serve the same purpose of the unread books Umberto Eco purchased but did not read that sit now as usefully humbling reminders of his own ignorance in his own library?

        Like

      • That said:

        ” Scientists are explorers. Philosophers are tourists.”

        According to Richard Feynman, American physicist (1918-1988), in 1985, cited in G. Laurence Nickard, Phenomenal surfaces and noumenal depths: Philosophy and quantum theory, ProQuest, 2006, p. 5

        From that cause, I choose to explore such literature – no matter the cost.

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        Mike, I am willing to pay for knowledge, and that is despite the fact that, thanks to the Internet and changing attitudes to open access, more and more knowledge is available for free. Still, I’m a lover of knowledge and I’m still willing to pay for it if I need to. I just don’t think that this particular piece of knowledge is worth my paying £25 for. If I understand you correctly, it contains a review of ideas I’ve already read in your book, nothing new, right? So why should I pay for something I already know? And this isn’t just any £25, this is £25 which is going into the coffers of Creationists. I’d really have to be desperate for this new knowledge to overcome my natural aversion to funding Creationists.

        Like

      • Only the synthesis is new Mike. A bit like the Origin of Species and much like your Linnean Society paper on Matthew. The difference being, Stratham thinks the critical question of priority, raised by the data I have uniquely discovered, is very important and not something to be deliberately put to one side.

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        The difference being, Mike, that my Biol J Linn Soc paper is open access, and Stratham’s one isn’t.

        Like

      • Of course. A difference of free access.. But that’s a relatively very new development in most academic journals. If only all books, magazines, newspapers, films and music etc could be same. Meanwhile, the similarity being we have to pay for those. That said, my book has been hacked by several rogues and made freely available already. Dagnabbit! (secretly, I’m rather pleased about that ;-0 – in one way) .

        Like

  33. Confirmatory evidence for the Frozen Donkey Hypothesis

    Link to Frozen Donkey Hypothesis:
    https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=22748

    I wrote a few months ago in a blog post (link above) on the Frozen Donkey Hypothesis that the failure of willfully ignorant pseudo-scholarly Darwinists to engage rationally and ethically with the paradigm changing New Data on who really did read Matthew’s (1831) prior-published hypothesis of natural selection would create an open field that others would occupy and so come to eventually over-top Darwinists as trusted scholars of the veracious history of the discovery of natural selection. The publication in August 2015 of a paper by the Creationist, Dominic Stratham (Stratham, J. (2015) Did Darwin plagiarize Patrick Matthew? JOURNAL OF CREATION 29(2) , is confirmatory evidence for my Frozen Donkey Hypothesis:

    If one encounters a frozen donkey in the road, standing, for all the world as though alive, no amount of reasoning, patience, impatient berating or rational cajoling will entice it to shift its position. The donkey is not merely being stubborn. Why not? Because it is bereft of life. The donkey can think no more, all mental faculties have ceased to be. The only solution is to go around it. Darwinist historians of science are behaving like frozen donkeys. Unable to adapt to a sudden change in their circumstances, they succumb to those circumstances. If they continue to do so they will be circumvented by scholars better able to adapt to the New Data. Once significantly circumvented, Darwinist historians of science will lose their power of occupancy in the literature on the topic of the discovery of natural selection. Once that happens they will shortly become intellectually extinct.

    Debate on why Darwinists should be thoroughly ashamed should begin here. Will it?

    Like

    • Mike, (Dr. Sutton)
      ……….like I said a fine piece of sturdy English Oak about 3 feet long.

      Like

      • Understood Howard. And personally I prefer a 2ft length of properly seasoned hawthorn ;-). But what if the donkey is effectively brain dead because it is “frozen” in its own mythologized past and by its own desire to please its long dead and discredited deified “Master” and the “Master’s” powerfully connected, self-serving, Darwin industry slave, living cohort of proxy-“God” worshiping desperately worm-wriggling pseudo-scholars? http://patrickmatthew.com/faith%20belief%20fun.html

        Like

      • Advice for anyone wishing to know the veracious history of the discovery of natural slection – as opposed to the mythologized pseud-scholarly Darwin worshiping version:

        For more original and newly discovered concrete facts that bust Darwinist claptrap, and in so doing drag the vexatious anomaly of Darwin’s and Wallace’s self-serving claims to have discovered natural selection independently of Matthew’s (1831) prior published hypotheses, and independently of those naturalists they knew who actually cited it before they replicated it, under the spotlight of veracity as a ludicrously biased Darwin worshiping belief in a completely unique and paradoxical dual miracle of immaculate conception of a prior published hypothesis – you could do worse than read Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret. For instance, you might alternatively – if you don’t care for hard and independently verifiable facts – read anything at all written on the topic by a top Darwinist!

        Click the link below for 100 per cent proof of Darwin’s lies and 100 % proof of the publication by eminent, powerfully connected and influential ‘so called expert’ Darwinists massively misleading the world with their self-serving Darwinist fallacies, which I have uniquely exposed through conducting proper research into the hard and independently verifiable published historical facts:
        http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/leading-evolutionary-biologists-are.html

        Like

  34. Interestingly, Professor Tony Waters (see comments on blog from the attached link) thinks that the evidence is sound that the US Peace Core has Victorian missionary influences. : https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/society_and_humanities/tony-waters?tab=blog&item=2011&blogpostid=23119

    The ID research method has found tentative, yet compelling. evidence that Matthew (1839) originated both the term Peace Corps” and the basic concept of the US movement: https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=21581

    Like

  35. Dr. Sutton

    I attempted to post this information on Tony Waters website but I don’t think that it took … so I will once again point out the fact that the probable Peace Corps information source that enabled Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey… assigned by John F. Kennedy to form a Think Tank… which would eventually glean not only the coined nomenclature name of the Peace Corps but the very premise of it’s logical historical conceptual roots from their readings of Emmigration Fields… more than likely was provided to them by Horace Matthew Bills who in the mid to late fifties received a copy from his German Cousin Wulf Gerdts just as I did in 2003. For those of you who do not know who this Matthew Bills is you may now catch the BFO (Blinding Flash Obvious) and suddenly realize the implications of his place in history largely due to the fact that he is also a 2nd Great Grandson of Patrick Matthew. Matthew Bills served as one of the most highly accredited International Legal Minds for the Central Intelligence Agency during the Kennedy, Johnson and Ford Administrations. His innumerable travels around the world brought him in contact with many world renown dignitaries…as well as opportunities to visit extended Matthew family members such as Wulf Gerdts in Germany and Errol Jones in New Zealand. After he retired from the CIA he helped with reviewing and editing of the 1969 National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) which created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and would shortly thereafter be appointed to be one of the Assistant Directors of it’s Research and Development Division. He would later head up the two First Response Teams for the Love Canal environmental and Three Mile Island Nuclear disasters.

    This isn’t Rocket Science boy’s. Old forgotten idea’s get brought back around all the time simply by somebody reading them for the first time and then realizing their significance…and worthiness as good ideas. Obviously Darwin was well aware of that concept…otherwise where would he even fantasize up that he even had the foggiest about reproducing a good apple. Please not also that if you continue reading in Chapters Xl and Xll of EF you could make a case though not as strong but a case none the less that some of that information found therein was probably base material for Kennedy’s creation of the Army Special Forces or better known as the U.S. Army’s “Green Beret’s.” who I worked with in Viet Nam while with the Army Security Agency….a military extension of the National Security Agency.

    Like

    • Dr. Sutton would you mind seeing that Professor Tony Waters sees this since I think I got timed out trying to explain it’s significance on his website. I would appreciate it…I have some other things that I must do to help my twin sons with getting back to College for the new fall semester just starting.

      Like

      • Tony Waters says:

        Dear Howard,
        Thanks for the note. Not sure why your comment didn’t take, but those things happen.

        I never thought of the common origin of the Green Berets and Peace Corps in the Kennedy administration. But the common connection is intriguing. Both would seem to come from an impulse to “do good” while also extending American influence abroad, albeit by different means. This was also the impulse behind the 19th century missionary efforts, and the spread of American diplomatic and military power about the same time.

        Best,
        Tony

        Like

      • Professor Waters,

        Exactly the point I’m trying to make. The historical biography of the Peace Corps erroneously gives Humphrey the credit for having discovered that Missionaries working with indigenous people set about teaching, building schools and medical clinics and spreading the gospel. among them…which Humphrey did obviously acquire that information through his assigned readers in his organized think tank. ( see note:) Not only did he get the coined nomenclature and basic organizational premise from P.M.’s 1939 book “Emmigration Fields” but if you read all of chapter X you will find that Matthew had already summarized the exact same points about the exact same missionary work being done and set it IN WRITING therefore establishing himself as the first to do so before he LATER IN CHAPTER X coined Peace Corps and it’s obvious premise which were used to design President Kennedy’s May 1961 version. Basically we have another redundant duplicity… but instead of a 28-29 year gap as with Darwin and Wallace on duplicating Matthew’s previous and more accurate theory of the natural process of selection this one with Humphrey over the Peace Corps is now 122-177 years old.

        Howard L. Minnick

        Note: I did a search several years ago to find out how many originals of both “On Naval Timber and Arboriculture as well as Emmigration Fields I might find… most of which are in collections at major Universities. I provided this information to Dr. Sutton to help him with his research. Harvard University was one of the few that had both. I seriously doubt either of the Kennedy’s read it while pursing their education there let alone Humphrey. Since Matthew Bills was well established in Eisenhower’s CIA before Kennedy was elected and that there is material that could also be tied to the Civilian Corps of Engineers in Patrick Matthew’s Emmigration Fields.” it’s not hard to possibly envision that Matthew Bills may have realized that there were some really great ideas here that possibly both Ike and JFK might possibly be able to use…and I’m almost sure that he had some ideas for the CIA operational divisions as well.

        Like

      • Dr. Sutton
        Most definitely… and most likely the obvious existence of priority being taken away from Patrick Matthew and wrongfully bestowed upon Hubert H. Humphrey came about through the unknowing benevolence of Matthew’s 2nd Great Grandson…Horace Matthew Bills. Something needs to be done about his oversight as well.

        Howard

        Like

  36. Subject: Willful self-serving refusal to recognize context: Risible Delusion, Bias, Irrationality, pseudo-scholarly cherry picking, Darwinist agenda driven bias, dishonesty.

    Below is a sample of verbatim text cut and here pasted from email sent to Howard Minnick (3rg great grandson of Patrick Matthew) from Dr Mike Sutton. Date Sunday August 30th – 2015 . Time: 2.42pm

    “It’s quite clear that what Mike Weale will write next (were I to respond to his latest nonsense – and probably anyway will write when he realizes I am not going to ) is that I surly could not have meant that I am not literally related to Andy Sutton since all humans are related genetically to one another. He will then use that to argue that Darwin similarly did not mean it literally when he wrote (1) that no no naturalist and then (2) that no one had read Matthew’s book. And if I played along to help him try to cover up his stupidity I would then simply explain to him that its all about context – Darwin told a literal purposeful self-serving lie when challenged about his priority by Matthew to keep Matthew down – I was simply making a relatively irrelevant remark about Andy Sutton that has nothing to do with my motives for writing it or with the argument etc. And so his desperate biased nonsense would go on. ”

    Subject: Prediction of Darwinist dysology 100 per cent confirmed – Comment from Dr Mike Weale to Dr Mike Sutton. Date September 3rd – 2015 -11.45: https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/leave-a-reply/comment-page-5/#comment-851

    “You were not deliberately lying when you referred to Andy as such.

    3. But in fact, it is impossible for you to be “no relation” to Andy Sutton, because all living things on this planet are related to each other. So unless either you or Andy came from another planet, you are both related, even if remotely.

    4. Thus, to describe Andy Sutton as “no relation” is technically a falsehood.”

    Conclusion = The “frozen donkey hypothesis” and my prediction of forthcoming evidence to confirm it 100 per cent confirmed.

    Problem = Desperate Darwinist pseudo-scholarship means that when faced with hard evidence that does not fit their agenda Darwinists do exactly what creationists and other pseudo scholars do. Namely, they invent ever more imaginative daft as a brush excuses to make hard dis-confirming evidence confirm their bias. You can’t debate with such people. But you can expose just how predictable their nonsense is. Job done!

    Like

    • mikeweale says:

      Dear Mike, yes I figured you saw the direction I was going in, and that’s why you refused to continue debating with me. I’m not sure what that proves exactly? There’s an interesting typo in your message above. “Surly” is right!

      Like

      • You may seek to “figure” whatever you like Mike. The reason I never responded was in order to make the point that pseudo-scholarship is highly predictable. I think I made that point very clearly.

        Despicable of me wasn’t it. Surly? You might argue so. I did it in response to your apparently surely surly refusal to admit to patently obvious facts if those facts do not suit your biased agenda.

        Let me try to explain:

        What is right Mike is that I have proven that you choose to cherry pick the meaning of words to be their opposite – even given the context in which they were precisely written – but that you do so only when it suits your need to make a specific argument to suit a very specific ‘Darwin over Matthew’ agenda. And you do so simply in order to argue that if the words written by Darwin or a leading Darwinist are taken literally, as they were written, then they were not meant to be taken literally if that makes Darwin and his Darwinists look silly. You are making this argument about words that were used, obviously, in the very deliberate context in they were deployed by their author’s to be precise in order to make and back-up their deliberate and main point within their line of argument in which they deployed those words. They were arguing in a context that Darwin could not have been influenced by Matthew.

        Today – in light of the actual facts that 100% prove those author’s statements (that include those words) untrue – those authors now look very stupid. And it is hard facts prove the authors stupid to have written what they did. But if those authors are called Darwin, or if they are Darwinists, then – by your apparent magical thinking – they never actually wrote anything stupid.

        Let’s burst the *Darwin* spell.

        Did Darwin, Mayr or de Beer mention once the name ‘Loudon’ when they wrote Matthew’s ideas were unread? No. Did they write anywhere that his ideas were read by others? No they did not.
        Did these authors ever mention the other reviewers of Matthew’s book when they wrote his ideas were unread? No they did not. Did they once mention his ideas were read by someone (anyone – any biologist, any naturalist)? No they did not. Did they very clearly and precisely write that Matthew’s prior-published work was unread in order to make their main point that Matthew could not have influenced Darwin? Yes they did. Did they ever write “not literally” of “metaphorically speaking”? No they did not. Did they ever write some naturalists or biologists – or anyone at all – might have read Matthew’s ideas? No they did not. They wrote that “totally” none nor “any other” at all “had ever” read Matthew’s ideas before 1860!

        Mayr wrote very specifically (and for the reason of supporting his main line of argument) that no biologists read Matthew’s ideas. Darwin wrote no naturalists read those ideas – and darwin did so very specifically and for a very precise reason – namely to defend himslef in the press. Those author’s wrote very precisely and within the context of defending Darwin against an argument of possible Mathewian knowledge contamination. And they wrote those precise words in a context where they needed to convince everyone that Matthew could not possibly have influenced Darwin either directly or indirectly before 1858. And thta has benn “the majority view” of Darwinists form 1858 to the present day. But the “majority view” is very very silly! Why is it silly? Because what we now know – thanks to my unique discoveries – that Loudon was in actual fact a naturalist (and Darwin read much of his work and corresponded about it ). We now newly know (oh how despicable that the New Data that I doscovered makes Darwin and his Darwinists look so silly) that Loudon edited Blyth’s influential work (Darwin admitted Blyth influenced him).

        Moreover, what we now know – thanks to my unique yet despicable independently verifiablle discoveries -is that Loudon was well known to William and Joseph Hooker – Darwin’s fiends and associates. Joesph Hooker was Darwin’s best friend. Joesph Hooker once wrote (pre 1858) that Loudon was better then a dozen other naturalists! Yet the same Joseph Hooker approved Darwin’s letter of 1860 to the Gardener’s Chronicle that no naturlaists had read Matthew’s ideas! Loudon was a member of the linnean society. Loudon was a noted botanist. Loudon edited the Magazine of Natural History. The shame of it for Darwinists that it took a social scientist (me) to have to be the very first person in the world to point that out in my book (Sutton 2104) Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret.

        What we now know – thanks to my unique discoveries – is that seven naturalists cited Mathew’s book pre 1858. And they include four – Selby, Chambers, Loudon, and Jameson – who were all highly networked with Darwwin and his influential network. Selby even edited the journal that published Wallace’s famous Sarawak paper!

        Hence – what is now so apparently despicable to Darwinists is the New Data makes Matthewian knowledge contamination a more realistic possibility than the old paradoxical paradigm of immaculate conception of a prior published hypotheis that was read pre-1858 by naturlaists knwn and influential to Darwin and Wallace.

        Yes aren’t Darwinists stupid for not looking at Loudon more closely. And yet before my research, they had 154 years to look at that vexatious”Loudon anomaly”. Perhaps they thought by way of Dariwinist Double-speak magical thinking Matthew meant Loudon had NOT reviewed his book when he wrote that he did review it? Would you like to argue that as wellMike ? It is a serious question given your logic. Why not Mike – its the same logic you seem like? After all, argung such a thing might help Darwinists look even more silly. Or did I mean less silly when I just wrote more? No Mike I meant more, because just look at the context in which I used it.

        Do I mean stupid literally in this context of the argument I am making do you think? I do! Why do I? Because of the context in which I used it to make the precise point I am cleraly making.

        All that you are proving on your webiste comments section – here – the Patrick Matthew Project in September 2015 – over and over again that you are refusing to admit the clear truth in order to create an imaginative story to make the data fit your clearly biased agenda. But given the context you are simply exposing your dreadful bias. And you – Mike Weale – only set up this webiste in the wake of my publication following its reporting in the Daily Telegraph Newspaper.

        The bias is clear because for you the words written by scientists in peer reviewed papers and books in the context of explaining why they believe Matthew’s book could not have possibly influenced Darwin or anyone he knew can mean whatever you need them to mean to make your brand new Darinist fairy story add up. So for you, when top Darwinists such as de Beer wrote “totally” unnoticed that means “not at all totally unnoticed” . And for you, Mike, the reason why Mayr wrote that no other biologists encountered Matthew’s ideas must nownewly be construed for the first time ever to mean that Mayr in fact wanted us all to know that what he really meant was that some biologists encountered Matthew’s ideas. And according to your mindset “unread” means “read” and – most risible of all all – you are claiming that “no biologists had ever” means today “some biologists did”. Perhaps I should use your posts on this blogsite in a paper on Darwinist Doublespeak? Would that please you?

        Do you choose to cherry pick that I did not literally mean the word “stupid” in my email to Howard? Well I did mean it literally. Only a stupid person would honestly think – or think otherwise but disonestly claim – otherwise.

        I sent Howard Minnick another prediction when I sent the first. I fully intend to publish it when it happens.

        Like

    • mikeweale says:

      Hey there Mr Grumpy-Gills!

      OK, so here’s one more attempt, my dear Mike, despite your relentless ad hominems and your incendiary smoke-screens, to debate the real issues with you.

      To re-cap, we both agree that there are indeed situations where “no” is used as a short-hand for “almost no”.

      This is already progress.

      So now, the debate is over *context* – over whether, in this particular context, the short-hand interpretation is appropriate for what Darwin wrote, or whether the literal interpretation is appropriate.

      Let’s consider two alternative hypotheses. The “innocent Darwin” hypothesis posits that Darwin never came across Matthew’s writings prior to 1860. The “devious Darwin” hypothesis posits that Darwin had read Matthew’s writings prior to 1860, and engaged in a deliberate cover-up.

      Under the “innocent Darwin” hypothesis, Darwin’s concern was that people would wonder why he never heard of Matthew’s writing, especially given (as Matthew was keen to point out in his first letter to the Gardiners’ Chronicle) that Darwin’s discovery stemmed from “the results of 20 years’ investigation and reflection”. If he’d done so much investigating, why hadn’t he come across it?

      But “innocent Darwin” knew that he had an enormous circle of correspondents, including every notable naturalist in the country. He also knew that no-one had pointed out Matthew’s prior work until Matthew himself had done so, several months after the publication of Darwin’s book. Thus Darwin felt himself to be on solid ground. He could claim that neither he nor, apparently, anyone else, had been aware of Matthew’s views, and he could provide a plausible explanation for this: they were too brief, and too buried in an Appendix which Matthew himself had described as “a little too wide” of the book’s primary subject.

      Under the “devious Darwin” hypothesis, Darwin had exactly the same concern. He had somehow stumbled across Matthew’s book, but he needed to establish a plausible alternative story – that he had not done so. Again, “devious Darwin” knew that he had an enormous circle of correspondents, including every notable naturalist in the country. And again he also knew that no-one had pointed out Matthew’s work until Matthew himself had done so, several months after the publication of Darwin’s book. Now, one can only assume that he’d either stumbled across Matthew’s book alone or, if he’d been told about it, that he knew whoever had told him would keep quiet about it, otherwise his gambit of declaring that no-one had heard of Matthew’s views makes no sense.

      Now here’s the thing. Under both the “innocent Darwin” and the “devious Darwin” hypothesis, Darwin’s motivation is exactly the same – the “context” is exactly the same. He wishes to declare that Matthew’s views were too brief and obscure, and he wishes to use the apparent silence of the entire community of naturalists on Matthew’s views as proof.

      Now, there is no “stupid Darwin” hypothesis to contend with here. Even “devious Darwin” was a clever man. For starters, Darwin (whether “”innocent” or “devious”) added so much to expand on Matthew’s brief exposition. Furthermore “devious Darwin” was clever enough to doctor his notebooks to look like he’d gradually “evolved” the idea of evolution by natural selection, which is no mean feat.

      So the context here, Mike, is two-fold. Firstly, Darwin (under either the “innocent” or “devious” hypothesis) had nothing to gain under the “literally no-one read Matthew’s book” interpretation that you favour. All it would do is make him look stupid. Under what plausible scenario, Mike, would a book published by a reputable publishing house on the subject of tree husbandry be not read by anyone? It is, indeed, a “silly” idea. In contrast, Darwin had plenty to gain under the “no-one important read Matthew’s book or noticed his views” interpretation that I favour.

      The second important piece of context here, Mike, is that Darwin’s motivation for what he said and wrote on this matter is *indistinguishable* under either the “innocent Darwin” or the “devious Darwin” hypothesis. In both cases, Darwin’s motivation is the same – he wishes to establish a plausible public reason for why he’d never come across the book.

      Mike, when a piece of evidence has an equally plausible explanation under two competing hypothesis, that evidence becomes worthless for evaluating their truth or falsehood. It’s not the existence of the evidence that I question, but rather the *interpretation* of the data as being of any value to the issue at hand. For a piece of evidence to be of value, it has to be both plausible under one competing hypothesis and implausible under the other.

      Let’s take another example. You claim that, because you were able to predict one of my arguments, this means it must be pseudo-science because pseudo-science is always predictable. Now, apart from the fact that this assertion is questionable (pseudo-science is not always predictable, because the arguments are often illogical), the key observation here is that rational scientific arguments are also predictable, aren’t they? In fact, one could even argue that they are more likely to be predictable than pseudo-scientific arguments. Therefore, there is no basis in logic for drawing the conclusion that because an argument in predictable, it must therefore be pseudo-science. One could even argue that this assertion is, itself, pseudo-scientific.

      Likewise, there is no basis in logic for drawing the conclusion that because Darwin sought to emphasise the obscurity of Matthew’s book, that therefore he must be “devious Darwin”.

      Let me end with one simple question for you Mike. Please could you suggest a plausible scenario under which a book published by a reputable publishing house on the subject of tree husbandry would not be read, literally, by anyone? My prediction is that you won’t answer this question.

      Like

  37. Dysology says:

    Mike {answering from my WordPress account} Your comment is so inaccurate in so many ways it is hardly worth my grumpy gills time to correct it paragraph by paragraph.

    Therefore, I will correct the last paragraph for now.

    You need to read what was actually written.

    When you do you might finally understand why your last “simple” question is – like your biased beliefs about what “absolutely” “any other” “no single person” “no one” and “none at all” really means – unsubstantiated by simple reality.

    In the Gardener’s Chronicle Darwin wrote Matthew’s “views” [not book].had “apparently” not been heard of “by any other naturalist”. Darwin then lied (once again) in the third edition of the Origin of species and every edition thereafter when he claimed that Matthew’s “views” [not book] “remained unnoticed” because they were in scattered pages in an Appendix. Darwin lied about the Appendix burial of Matthew’s ideas because swathes of text in the samples of text Matthew included in his first letter to claim his priority in the Gardener’s Chronicle came from the main body of his book – and Darwin wrote to Hooker to say as much.

    de Beer wrote that Matthew’s work and Well’s works “remained completely unnoticed” because they had been “published” in “obscure places”. de Beer never wrote that Matthew’s book had gone unnoticed.

    Mayr wrote that “neither Darwin nor any other biologist had ever” encountered Matthew’s “notes” “in an appendix” Mayr – just like Darwin and de Beer – did not say the book had not been read.

    I have many other examples.

    So what is the point of your question exactly? It is completely irrelevant to the independently verifiable published facts and shows that you are making an illogical and unfounded argument because you are in apparent ignorance of them. That is exactly what Mayr, de Beer and a host of other Darwinists have done.

    Like

  38. Dysology says:

    Firstly, Mike you are being accidentally (I presume) “dishonest” with yourself if you “believe” that I have not answered your question, which you asked in the last paragraph above my answer to it. Because I very clearly informed you of the facts by way of clearly stated answer to your question. Yours was a very specific question: where you asked me this:

    “Please could you suggest a plausible scenario under which a book published by a reputable publishing house on the subject of tree husbandry would not be read, literally, by anyone? My prediction is that you won’t answer this question.”

    By way of replying to it, specifically, by informing you that your question – with regard to our discussion of what Darwin, de Beer and Mayr wrote was irrelevant to what those three wrote. Because none of them wrote that Matthew’s BOOK had not been read. They wrote that the unique IDEAS on natural selection in that book had not been read. pre 1860. Either not read by anyone – (de Beer) or not read by any biologists. So in the specific CONTEXT on the point of a very specific argument on a very precise point about a BOOK being read or unread – as opposed to the ideas in it – – literally the book – ( which is exactly what you asked about) I answered your question about BOOKS being unread with very clear and unambiguous words in order to make a clear and unambiguous argument in the context of that specific point. In other words I showed you that your question was not informed by the facts of what Darwin, de Beer and Mayr actually wrote – not by the facts of what they unambiguously claimed.

    Now, Darwin, de Beer, and Mayr were all writing very specifically, in the very specific context of making an argument that it would not be reasonable to claim that Darwin could have been influenced by Matthew’s prior discovery. To make their argument they claimed – literally that Matthews’ unique ideas were not read.

    So, to be precise, de Beer (1962 p. 333) wrote – unambiguously in an unambiguous context with clearly unambiguous words and phrases to make his unambiguous argument in the context of that precise argument::

    “…William Charles Wells and Patrick Matthew were predecessors who had actually published the principle of natural selection in obscure places where their works remained completely unnoticed until Darwin and Wallace reawakened interest in the subject.’

    Mayr did exactly the same: (Mayr 1982. p.499).

    ‘The person who has the soundest claim for priority in establishing a theory or evolution by natural selection is Patrick Matthew…. His views on evolution and natural selection were published in a number of notes in an appendix to his work On Naval Timber and Arboriculture (1831). These notes have virtually no relation to the subject matter of the book, and it is therefore not surprising that neither Darwin nor any other biologist had ever encountered them until Matthew brought forward his claims in an article in 1860 in the Gardener’s Chronicle.’

    For my part, Mike, in the comment of mine that you cite, II was being very exact and precise in my comment where I wrote that Darwin claimed no naturalist had read Matthew’s ideas because that is precisely what Darwin wrote in the Gardener’s Chronicle in his letter of reply to Matthew in 1860. He wrote: (Darwin 1860a pp 362-63):

    ” I think that no one will feel surprised that neither I, nor apparently any other naturalist, had heard of Mr Matthew’s views, ”

    What Darwin wrote was was a self-serving lie because Matthew had already informed him that Loudon (a famous naturalist known to Darwin) had read his book and reviewed it.

    The following year – in receipt of Matthew’s information about Loudon (a naturalist) and in receipt of further information Matthew supplied when he wrote: (Matthew 1860b p. 433)

    ‘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 marketplace 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,..’

    Darwin wrote a further lie in his letter to de Breau and in the third edition of Origin of species and thereafter when he wrote

    First informed by Matthew that Loudon, a famous naturalist, had read and reviewed his book, and then, to correct Darwin’s falsehood, of another naturalist who had read and yet feared to teach the views in it, the following year Darwin wrote to the French naturalist de Bréau.

    “… 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.”

    In April 1861, in the Third Edition of the Origin of Species , and in every edition thereafter, Darwin wrote:

    ‘ Unfortunately the view was given by Mr. Matthew very briefly in scattered passages 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,’ on April 7th, 1860.’

    Moving on to the issue of context of what I wrote. Now, with regard to your question above where you ask me:

    “OK, here’s another simple question for you.
    You wrote here (https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/leave-a-reply/comment-page-5/#comment-806) the following:
    “4. Darwin (1860 and 1861 – to his death) wrote and had published his own fabricated falsehoods when he claimed that no naturalists, indeed no one at all, had read Matthew’s (1831) book before Matthew informed Darwin about it in 1860 in the Gardener’s Chronicle.”

    Are you now claiming that you did not mean that literally?”

    My honest answer is that when I wrote what I interpreted Darwin to mean when I wrote:

    “Indeed no one at all, had read Matthew’s (1831) book before Matthew informed Darwin about it in 1860 in the Gardener’s Chronicle.”

    By “indeed no one at all” I wrote that unambiguously an in order to win an argument at the time because at the time I wrote it I thought (erroneously on my part) as it turns out that that was the meaning of what Darwin wrote. However, only when we began to specifically discuss, here in this comments section, the context (the unambiguous and highly specific context of Darwin’s de Beer’s and Mayr’ arguments that Matthew could not have influenced Darwin) did it become necessary, in the highly specific context of what they wrote and why they wrote it, to examine whether or not Darwin, de Beer and Mayr did or did not mean to use their unambiguous words to be literally interpreted as they were unambiguously written in order to unambiguously convince the world that Matthew’s ideas were not read by anyone who could have influenced Darwin.

    In other words in the CONTEXT of my use of “indeed no one at all” – my writing that unambiguous statement was not an essentially [ not NEEDED ] by me to make an unambiguous point in order for me to make my argument in order to convince the world that Darwin was wrong. – because I had already proven Darwin was wrong when he fallaciously claimed no naturalist had read Matthew’s idea (as proven by what Matthew wrote to inform him otherwise and then by the other naturalists that I have uniquely discovered such as Selby (1842) and Jameson (1853) who read Matthew’s unique ideas and also commented upon them.

    Your interpretation that Darwin, de Beer and Mayr did not mean it literally when they used – and NEEDED – to use those words and terms is akin to postmodern thinking. Are you now a postmodern Darwinist, Mike, – in light of my unique synthesis of the literature and my unique discoveries?

    I ask, because here, 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, biologists, or by anyone known to Darwin or Wallace, the you can be found here on your website: The Patrick Matthew Project. claiming that the words and terms used by Darwin, de Beer and Mayr: “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, according to you if they represent data that proves Darwin lied and the World’s leading Darwinists published deliberate and/or credulous Darwin-parroting falsehoods then they must be interpreted as meaning the opposite to what was actually written.

    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.’

    Postmodernists – including the newly evolved – it seems – post-modern Darwinists – seek to do intellectual mischief, which is caused by their 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 they and all postmodernists to be rationally and equally open to any self-servingly favourable human interpretation they or anyone else wishes to deploy, no matter how irrational.

    I would argue that’s exactly what you are doing Mike – lIke Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carrol’s (1872) ‘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.’

    The existence of postmodernism as an identifiable movement allows us to see that those who wish stupidly to believe, or like Humpty Dumpty to pretend they stupidly believe that words no longer hold their unambiguous meaning in the specific CONTEXT in which they were specifically deployed by their author to win an unambiguous argument- but can be reasonably believed, instead, to hold their opposite meaning even when they were clearly 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.

    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 that of a crafty clown deploying a main mode of defense that involves pretending to be too stupid to know what’s going on.

    :

    Like

    • mikeweale says:

      Dear Mike,

      I don’t think that saying “the question is irrelevant” counts as answering a question. I think a judge would still instruct you to “please just answer the question, Dr Sutton”. However, this is minor thing.

      The big, huge thing is that you have now admitted that you were wrong to accuse Darwin of asserting that literally no-one had read Matthew’s book (something that you’ve said on numerous occasions, Mike, very vociferously), and also by implication that you were wrong to claim that all Darwinists believed this assertion literally.

      Mike, this is enormous progress. This claim of yours was always the most ludicrous of your claims (hence my previous description of it as “silly”). This is great news.

      So to recap:
      (1) You accept that, in some situations, “no” can be reasonably interpreted to mean “almost no”.
      (2) You retract your claim that Darwin asserted that literally no-one had read Matthew’s book, and that every Darwinist since has believed this statement.

      Of course, you continue to claim that Darwin asserted that literally no-one had read the parts of Matthew’s book that related to his views on evolution by natural selection.

      So, in light of this, and in response to your request for clarification in one of your previous comments, my next question for you is:
      “Please could you suggest a plausible scenario under which a modestly-sized book, published by a reputable publishing house on the subject of tree husbandry, would not be read completely, from cover-to-cover, by literally anyone?”

      Like

      • Mike

        Unlike you – it seems from the evidence in the comments on this website – when I am wrong I admit it. What do you do Mike?

        You have never once admitted that you got it wrong regarding Matthew actually originating the “artificial versus natural selection analogy” which both Darwin and Matthew replicated. It took me showing you the Oxford English Dictionary definition of what an analogy is to prove that there are analogies of differences and it took me teaching you that biologist as a group don’t know that fact. I taught you that on this website in order to prove your extensive efforts to deny Matthew wrote an analogy were all entirely wrong. . Enormous progress for you will occur when you admit the truth on that fact. I await your admission that you were wrong.

        Enormous progress will also be made when you cease writing that I am agreeing with you on the postmodern nonsense you are patently writing that the opposite meaning to that which is unambiguously written can be attributed to clearly unambiguous words, written with clearly unambiguous intent, to seek to prove, unambiguously, (fallaciously as it turns out – thanks to my original discoveries) that Matthew could not have influenced Darwin. I don’t agree with your postmodernist nonsense Mike. I strongly recommend you read “The Flight for Science and Reason” by by Professor Paul R. Gross (Editor), Professor Norman Levitt (Editor), Professor Martin W. Lewis (Editor). That book shows the pitfalls of just making stuff up to try to in an argument. And it paints a very bad picture of those who do. I’m sure you would not like to be included in such a book.

        Moving on.

        Unfortunately for you Mike, you are yet again being dishonest with yourself (presumably once again “accidentally” – like (presumably) all Darwinist dishonesty. Because if you think any enormous progress has been made in Darwin’s favour you have got hold of the wrong end of the stick once again. In fact, this point of detail makes enormous progress in explaining Darwin’s Appendix Burial Myth and the credulous (or accidentally dishonesty) parroting of it by the World’s top evolutionary biologists. And in fact that minor little point is one that you clearly missed until I pointed it out to with regards to actually answering your question by telling you it was a silly question that you asked (unless, now, you wish to be tiresomely accidentally dishonest after the event and write something to the contrary).

        Now, why what you think is enormous progress, that is (supposedly) to be interpreted as what you call “progress” in terms of your one sided spin for Darwin and your spin against the facts that I originally discovered that 100% disconfirm the old fixed false Darwinist belief that no biologist, no naturalist and “no one at all” read Matthew’s original ideas in his book – is in fact progress towards the veracious history of the discovery of natural selection. And the reason why it helps us make such enormous progress is because it explains why Darwin wrote one of the six lies he penned to steal Matthew’s right to be considered an immortal great thinker and influencer in science.

        Let me explain:

        The point that I corrected myself upon – in my comment above – regarding the actual veracious detail on the fact that Darwin wrote Matthew’s IDEAS went unread as opposed to his “BOOK” went unread is very significant. Because this point of detail actually goes against Darwin. It does that because it explains why he lied by inventing the Appendix Burial Myth. He lied in the creation of that when he wrote in 1860 in the Gardener’s Chronicle that Matthew’s VIEWS were buried in an appendix.Darwin wrote a lie on that point because Matthew had – in his first 1860 letter in the Gardener’s chronicle already supplied Darwin with significant text on natural selection from the main body of his book – And Darwin (1860) wrote to Hooker to admit it:

        “The case in G. Chronicle seems a little stronger than in Mr. Matthews[sic] book, for the passages are therein scattered in 3 places. But it would be mere hair-splitting to notice that.”

        It appears from what he wrote to Hooker that Darwin was a postmodernist himself. Why do I say that? Because Darwin was either quite a way up the psychopath spectrum or a postmodernist if he thought it is hairsplitting to admit the truth and hair splitting to then go on and write a lie that has been parroted as the truth since by multitudes of credulous pseudo-scholarly Darwinists:

        The Appendix lie followed in the Gardeners Chronicle when Darwin (1860) wrote:

        “I think that no one will feel surprised that neither I, nor apparently any other naturalist, had heard of Mr Matthew’s views, considering how briefly they are given, and they appeared in the Appendix to a work on Naval Timber and Arboriculture.”

        Now the point that Darwin did in fact write “VIEWS” is important – because it explains why he invented the Appendix Myth, And it explains why the likes of de Beer and Mayr – and so many others went on to credulously (or furtively dishonestly) parrot it as the truth thereafter.

        Here are just a few other examples of the parroting of the Appendix myth. All parroted for the sole purpose of making the unambiguous (yet newly 100% proven fallacious by my research) argument that Matthew could not have influenced Darwin:

        I pick on the following four Darwinists merely to serve as examples of this credulous attitude and Supermyth-spreading behaviour:

        Stephen J Gould (1987, p. 336, in ‘The Flamingo’s Smile: Reflections in Natural History’.unquestionably reprints Darwin’s entire letter as though it is unquestionably right.

        Michael Shermer (2002) In “Darwin’s Shadow: The Life and Science of Alfred Russel Wallace: A Biographical Study on the Psychology of History” also reprinted Darwin’s Appendix Myth explanation, without a word of doubt in the likelihood of its veracity, but claimed instead – incredibly – that it was good evidence that Darwin was hardly an ideological plagiarizer.

        Rebecca Stott (2012, p. 11) in “Darwin’s Ghosts” Simply reprints Darwin’s Appendix Myth fallacy verbatim as though it were true, failing to question the likelihood that it might not be the literal truth.

        Andrew Norman (2013, p. 169) in Charles Darwin: Destroyer of Myths admirably felt it necessary to investigate – and so affirm – Matthew’s claim that his book received prominent reviews, but less admirably, Norman also unquestionably reprinted Darwin’s letter as though Darwin’s word alone that no naturalist had read Matthew’s views was the unquestionable “gospel truth”. In other words, Norman thought it necessary to investigate Matthew’s claim that his book had been read and reviewed, but not to undertake a BigData facilitated review of the literature, as I did in 2014, to investigate the extent of the fallacy of Darwin’s claim that no naturalists had read it’s views. Moreover, Norman knew about the naturalist Loudon’s review of Matthew’s book but he failed to mention therefore that Darwin had written a fallacy by claiming no naturalist read Matthew’s vies. Moreover, Norman failed to follow up by failing to look at the intellectual links between Loudon and Darwin. Had Norman done so he would have found that after reading Matthew’s book that Loudon edited two of Blyth’s influential papers – that both greatly influenced Darwin – and he would have found that Loudon was well known to Darwin’s friends William and Joseph Hooker and to their closest associates.

        Picking up on Darwin’s dishonest cue of 1860, some writers were not quite so audacious as to reprint without question Darwin’s claim that literally no naturalists read Matthew’s VIEWS pre-1860, Nevertheless, they greatly implied they had gone unread by naturalists.

        Loren Eiseley (1957) in Darwin’s Century (p. 127) writes: “Matthew’s system perished, …because it had been published obscurely by an obscure man…”

        Bowler (2013) in Darwin Deleted (p. 58) implies Matthew was unread: “Having a basic idea, even publishing it, has no effect if the publication is obscure…”

        Millhauser (1959) in Just before Darwin (p. 72) implies the same by dismissing Matthew’s book as some kind of working man’s manual: “And there is that remarkable fellow Patrick Matthew, whose Naval Timber and Arboriculture (of all the practical books in the world)….”

        Dawkins (2010) In Bill Bryson’s edited collection : ‘Seeing Further ‘ (p, 209) does the same as Millhauser did before him: “…wouldn’t he have published it in a more prominent place than the appendix to a manual on silviculture?”

        Now having stated the facts that explain the enormous progress I am making here in explaining the motive for Darwin writing the Appendix Burial Myth as being to write a downright lie to successfully hoodwink the world into believing the lopsided fallacious spin that Matthew’s IDEAS were hidden in his book’s appendix, let’s next see what the serial liar Darwin did the following year with his lie.

        Darwin wrote from 1861 onward in every edition of his book the ‘Origin of Species’ the following fallacious excuse:

        “In 1831 Mr. Patrick Matthew published his work on ‘Naval Timber and Arboriculture,’ in which he gives precisely the same view on the origin of species as that (presently to be alluded to) propounded by Mr. Wallace and myself in the ‘Linnean Journal,’ and as that enlarged on in the present volume. Unfortunately the view was given by Mr. Matthew very briefly in scattered passages 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,’ on April 7th, 1860.”

        So discussing your postmodern thinking here has indeed helped us make enormous progress towards writing a veracious history of the discovery of natural selection Mike. Isn’t that a wonderful thing for veracity in the history of the discovery of natural selection. Don’t you think?

        To recap: Darwin wrote that Matthew’s original ideas on natural selection had gone unread. I earlier made the mistake of thinking that Darwin meant us to believe that no one had read Matthew’s book. He never meant that. He meant us to believe a better lie than that. Darwin invented his Appendix Burial Myth in order to make his lies more believable (and they are lies because Darwin knew Matthew’s ideas on natural selection were not solely contained in his book’s appendix and the Appendix Burial Myth is also a great fat self-serving lie because Matthew had, prior to Darwin’s lies, told Darwin about the naturalist Loudon and another naturalist reading the original ideas on natural selection in his book.

        This is an enormous breakthrough that I have nowwritten into the draft of a paper I am currently writing. It’s not a postmodern paper I’m afraid, so I suspect , sadly, thatyou won’t be interested in it Mike. Sorry about that. Instead, my sociological paper it’s full of brand new 100 percent independently verifiable facts and explains how these new facts, which I originally discovered, uniquely disproved the earlier Darwinist fixed-false-belief that no naturalists, no biologists, and no one known to Darwin or Wallace had prior knowledge of Matthew’s original ideas on natural selection.

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        Dear Mike,

        “Please could you suggest a plausible scenario under which a modestly-sized book, published by a reputable publishing house on the subject of tree husbandry, would not be read completely, from cover-to-cover, by literally anyone?”

        Like

      • Dysology says:

        Weirdly, if the obvious answer is for some strange reason still not plainly apparent to you yet Mike, let me yet again be as clear as I have been all along on that issue .

        The credulous Darwin worshippers de Beer and Mayr – simply relied on the three lies (and they were lies because Matthew had informed him in the Gardener’s Chronicle about naturalists who did read his book) written by Darwin:

        (1) ” I think that no one will feel surprised that neither I, nor apparently any other naturalist, had heard of Mr Matthew’s views, ”

        (Darwin 1860 – First letter in Gardener’s Chronicle pp 362-63)

        Next:

        (2) “… 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 [my emphasis] noticed the scattered passages in his book.”

        (Darwin 1861 – letter to de Bréau)

        Next:

        (3) in April 1861, in the Third Edition of the Origin of Species, and in every edition thereafter, Darwin wrote:

        ‘ Unfortunately the view was given by Mr. Matthew very briefly in scattered passages in an Appendix to a work on a different subject, so that it remained unnoticed [my emphasis] until Mr. Matthew himself drew attention to it in the Gardener’s Chronicle,’ on April 7th, 1860.’

        (Darwin 1861)

        So what followed next?

        The World’s leading Darwinists (scientists no less – men trained to write precisely and accurately men supposed to be truthful and not at all misleading) wrote in the peer-reviewed literature something that no Darwinist ever once criticised for being self-servingly untrue.

        For example, Mayr and de Beer (others have done the same) wrote the words that follow in the context of denying any possible route of knowledge contamination from Matthew to Darwin. They wrote absolute literal fallacies in order for Darwinist to be able to believe in Darwin’s vexatiously anomalous claim to have independently discovered Matthew’s prior published discovery.

        “…William Charles Wells and Patrick Matthew were predecessors who had actually published the principle of natural selection in obscure places where their works remained completely unnoticed until Darwin and Wallace reawakened interest in the subject.’

        (de Beer 1962 p. 333).

        ‘The person who has the soundest claim for priority in establishing a theory or evolution by natural selection is Patrick Matthew…. His views on evolution and natural selection were published in a number of notes in an appendix to his work On Naval Timber and Arboriculture (1831). These notes have virtually no relation to the subject matter of the book, and it is therefore not surprising that neither Darwin nor any other biologist had ever encountered them until Matthew brought forward his claims in an article in 1860 in the Gardener’s Chronicle.’

        (Mayr 1982. p.499).

        So the scenario which they and all Darwinist have built their 155 year old paradigm of Darwin’s and Wallace’s “independent” discoveries of Matthew’s original discovery is founded on the newly punctured myth (thanks to my research) that there were no possible routes of knowledge contamination because no naturalist whatsoever, none known to Darwin and no biologist had read Matthew’s ideas before Matthew told Darwin about them in 1860.

        So the claims made by Darwin and the claim made by de Beer and the claim made by Mayr are stupid claims.

        And Darwinists who have so clearly believed these claims because no single Darwinist EVER ONCE criticised them. And no single one looked at Loudon and followed up the truth as I did – are stupid.

        Shocking isn’t it Mike. No wonder you are now so palpably wriggling on the end of the hook.

        .And Darwinists have been stupid these past 155 years for being so daft as not to look at the Loudon anomaly – as I did – which punctured those claims.

        Is it so weirdly not clear to you Mike that, of course, such a book would have been read. But the claim is that the “ideas” in it were not read. Of course, those ideas were read – but Darwin and his Darwinists (for 155 years) pretended otherwise. Why else have Darwinists ALL ignored Loudon?

        In the story of Matthew and Darwin: Why did Darwinists not follow up what Loudon did after 1832 – as I originally did. Why not follow up who he was – as I originally did. Why not follow up who he knew – as I originally did?

        Moreover, further telling questions call out for answers.

        if they are not stupid, why else have Darwinists not mentioned the other unnamed naturalist who was afraid of pillory punishment if he were to discuss Matthew’s ideas (the one Matthew told Darwin about in 1860) – when making their unambiguous arguments that no such people read Matthew’s ideas? That failure to investigate disconfirming evidence for Darwin’s lies is an anomaly in what is supposed to be sound scholarship Mike.

        Do you know what you are supposed to do when you spot such an anomaly?

        You are supposed to cherish and investigate it as I did. The fact Darwin and his Darwinists ignored it is what turned it into a donkey biting paradox in their credulous blind belief system. Thar’s proven by the New Data I discovered.

        The answer is obvious. No one followed up Loudon because Darwinists were hoodwinked by their own lies and palpable stupidity. They forgot the maxim: “Treasure your exceptions”. And now they are paying the price. No amount of irrational postmodern wriggling is going to fix the facts Mike.

        Darwinists have been made to look stupid after 2104 only because of my research which proved their unambiguous claims made in the unambiguous context of unambiguously arguing, using unambiguous words and phrases, to make an unambiguous argument that there existed no routes of possible knowledge contamination between Matthew and Darwin, Only now do you wish to claim that they never meant what they clearly wrote. Only now Mike. Only now.Why only now Mike?

        Why is that so Mike? Could it not be, and of this we should be far from uncertain, because otherwise Darwinists NOW – only now in light of the New Data- look institutionally stupid?

        My definition of institutional stupidity – formed from observing your arguments Mike:

        “Strict adherence to denying the existence of your own group’s disproven beliefs by making irrational arguments from fear of looking stupid.”

        The question now remains – “Are ALL Darwinists desperately stupid when cornered by the truth of their stupidity?”

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        Dear Mike,

        You seem to be partly answering my question, but I’m not 100% sure. You seem to be implying that there is no plausible scenario under which a modestly-sized book, published by a reputable publishing house on the subject of tree husbandry, would not be read from cover-to-cover by at least someone. Have I got that right? Could you confirm that is what you think?

        Like

      • You fully know you have the full answer Mike. Just read what I wrote: “Of course it was read” but Darwinists – taking Darwin’s lead claimed Matthew’s original ideas were not read. That makes them stupid.

        I’m not giving you an answer for you to “interpret” an “present” out of CONTEXT because you have very ably demonstrated that you think interpreting and presenting what people write out of context is acceptable as opposed to pseudoscholarship. Pseudoscholars – as I am sure you would agree – are untrustworthy. We are judged by our actions and our disingenuity.

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        Dear Mike,

        I understand that you believe that Matthew’s book *was* read from cover to cover by some people. My question was about how *likely* you think that event was. One way to address that question is to come up with a plausible alternative scenario, one in which a book like Matthew’s, published in the usual way, was not read, from cover to cover, by anyone at all. Correct me if I’m wrong, Mike, but you still have not explicitly answered that question.

        Like

      • Mike there is no such plausible scenario, which is what makes your asking for it in the context of this discussion about the hard facts about what was written and why it was written as silly in my opinion as what Darwin and the world’s leading Darwinists have unequivocally written.

        How many scenarios that people wish to believe in are not plausible? The world of science, religion, conjuring tricks and crime (fraud in particular) is full of them.

        The problem, we are faced with, for veracity in the history of science is the same as that James Randi famously explained regarding those who believe in the paranormal and other debunked and otherwise unevidenced nonsense:

        “The public really doesn’t listen when they are being told straight-forward facts. They would rather accept what some charismatic character tells them than really think about what the truth might be. They would rather have the romance and the lies.”

        So once again, based upon the independently verifiable evidence I have presented above – so many times – and upon further evidence in my book “Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret” , here is the highly specific CONTEXT within which Darwinists have made strategically self-serving fallacious – and very, very, silly – claims:

        The 155 year old paradigm that Darwin and Wallace discovered natural selection independently of Matthew’s (1831) prior and original publication of the full hypothesis is premised on credulous Darwinist belief in the self-serving lie written by their namesake in his own defence in the Gardener’s Chronicle in 1860, and in his subsequent lies from the third edition of the Origin of Species onward (Darwin 1861), that no naturalist had read Matthew’s original ideas on natural selection until he brought them to Darwin’s attention in 1860. The independently verifiable facts of the matter turn in the opposite direction to Darwinist spin. In point of fact, Darwin knew otherwise when he wrote his lies, because Matthew clearly informed him, before he wrote them, that naturalists – such as John Loudon, for example – had read those ideas. Indeed, as Matthew further explained to Darwin in 1860, an unnamed naturalist, a professor of an esteemed institution, told Matthew that he was afraid to teach the scientific ideas in his 1831 book for fear of pillory punishment for religious heresy. Curiously, at the time of writing these words (September 2015), these are two disconfirming facts among many others selectively ignored by cherry-picking Darwinists in the highly specific context of their strategic and successful one-sided-spin telling of the story of their namesake’s claimed ‘independent’ discovery of Matthew’s prior published ideas. In sum, ludicrous though their claims are, because Matthew’s book would have been read in its entirety by many people, including naturalists, Darwinist published spin on this topic, written in the context of denying the existence of any probable routes of Matthewian knowledge contamination of the pre-1858 works of Darwin and Wallace, is premised upon misrepresenting the significance of the suitability of the title of Matthew’s book as one that naturalists would not read, and that even if they did read it they would not appreciate the significance of Matthew’s discovery within its pages, or else would not read the arguments where they were placed within it. Those fallacies were published to prop-up various fallacious yet unequivocal arguments made by Darwin and leading Darwinists that no naturalists, no biologists, no one known to Darwin or Wallace, or even – apparently most stupidly of all – no one whatsoever, read Matthew’s (1831) unique ideas on natural selection before 1860.

        Like

  39. Andy Sutton says:

    I thought I’d add something on just one aspect of this lengthy thread which caught my attention. I’m the Andy Sutton who may or may not be related to Mike Sutton. On that trivial issue the simple response is to say that the normal definition of relation may be debatable at the margins but in standard usage implies sharing an ancestor of a few generations or by marriage at that kind of level. In a biology a class the more formal definition would (as I understand it) dictate that of course we are related and must share common ancestry.. The latter is literally true, the former not so, it’s just true by common consent, but debatable. So, yes, not everything is literal, and context must be considered. But … the fact that context can vary meaning doesn’t give licence to interpret any statement loosely, rather, it helps us understand how to interpret them. If, in ordinary conversation, I say “most years have 365 days” most people would agree that it’s true. Except, I assume, in an astronomy class, where people would rightly say it’s pretty rare for a planetary year to have 365 days. We know of only one planet that does. Context is important. If I write a short, informal piece in my workplace newsletter about technology and crime, Mike Sutton (no relation, but of my species, and works in the office next door), who would be a recipient, might pop into my office and say I wasted my time. “Why?” ask I. “I haven’t read it and nobody I’ve spoken to has read it” is his disappointing reply. In that context I wouldn’t take him literally on the “nobody I know” bit. It’s almost certain that somebody he knows has read it, but I know what he means, and I don’t expect him to have meant that literally. He means it hasn’t come up, and he’s really just saying it had low impact. However, if I wrote my piece in the newsletter, then noticed a few months later that Mike had published something which draws on the same ideas I used, and I pointed this out to him, he might say “I haven’t read it, and nobody I’ve spoken to has read it” the context is different. He is defending himself against an accusation of plagiarism. He’s claiming he came up with it independently, and he will have checked with the people he speaks to before making the claim. He would word it differently if he found that some of them had read it but not spoken with him about it (“it seems some of my close colleagues read it, but they never spoke to me about it.”). In that context he would intend the world to take his statement literally, because it’s a formal defence and he knows he’ll be in trouble if his statement turns out to be false. Integrity is on the line. So it seems to me that any denial that Darwin or the people around him had read Matthews should be assessed in the same way. We can’t just say “sometimes things are not meant literally, therefor we never know whether anything was meant to be literal in any given context”, we have to say “context tells us how to interpret statements”. When the context is a defence against an accusation of misconduct, we’d expect the writer to have chosen words carefully and, unless trying to cover up guilt, to be unambiguous, clear and literal, because his words may later haunt him. He would not want to leave room for accusers to think he is using clever words to give him room for manoeuvre in case more evidence emerges. When politicians say “I have no plans to raise taxes” we all know that is literally true (no plans), but it doesn’t mean they won’t – they know that under questioning they must give the literal, unambiguous truth. They have no plans. What they can’t do is say “I won’t raise taxes” then say “Oh, I didn’t mean it literally”. Formal, on the record statements in the context of an accusation of malpractice would not be ambiguously worded by an intelligent academic scientist concerned for his integrity and reputation. It might be true, it might be a lie, that neither Darwin nor the people around him had not read Matthews, but the statement, in the context it was made, was surely intended to be literal. Mike has shown it to be untrue. That in itself doesn’t prove Darwin drew on Matthews ideas, but it establishes that he lied at least once in the context of a misconduct allegation, and begs the question of why he would lie.

    Liked by 1 person

    • mikeweale says:

      Dear Andy,

      Thank you for your contribution. I agree with much of what you say. I agree with your view that Darwin was defending himself, and he was using the apparent obscurity of Matthew’s book as his defence. You write that in this context, the “defence” context, Darwin would have checked very carefully to make sure there really was no-one else who had read Matthew’s passages relating to evolution by natural selection. I disagree. It would have been a Herculean task for Darwin to have checked with every single naturalist personally, and unnecessary. If there were any “Matthew readers” out there, all they needed to do was to declare themselves. Darwin left some room for doubt in his original letter (“apparently no other naturalist…”). By the time the “Historical Sketch” came out a year later, no-one had declared themselves, and so the doubt was removed (“it remained unnoticed”). Thus, I continue to assert that there is a plausible, innocent interpretation of what Darwin wrote.

      Like

      • Dysology says:

        Mike

        Andy was writing about the all important context of Darwin writing what Darwin wrote in his own defence for not citing Matthew’s original prior published (1831) discovery of natural selection – which he replicated years later. So bearing in mind the context of his defence Darwin wrote:

        ” I think that no one will feel surprised that neither I, nor apparently any other naturalist, had heard of Mr Matthew’s views, ”

        (Darwin 1860 – First letter in Gardener’s Chronicle pp 362-63.

        So let’s look at the context in which Darwin wrote “apparently”.

        Apparently to whom?

        Well, Matthew had just informed Darwin, prior to Darwin writing the word “apparently”, that his book absolutely had been read by others – including the naturalist Loudon (who it turns out, following my original discovery, edited two of Blyth’s influential papers that influenced Darwin pre 1858). So “apparently” the ideas in it were read. And this was made more than just “apparently” clear to Darwin before he wrote the opposite.

        So Matthew’s ideas were not at all “apparently” unread as far as Matthew was plainly concerned. Obviously.

        Apparently not “apparently” to anyone else other than Darwin then? This seems so, because the only fact we know that helps us here is the concrete fact that before Darwin wrote that “apparently” line no one single person, no biologist and no naturalist whatsoever, anywhere, ever, had written that Matthew’s’ ideas were either unread or “apparently” unread.

        Darwin started the myth that Matthew’s ideas were unread with his lie written in his own defence.

        And the ideas in Matthew’s book – as Darwin knew (because Matthew had prior-informed him in writing) – were read by Loudon and others because before he wrote that “apparently” they were not Darwin knew for a fact that they definitely were.

        More than just, apparently, therefore, Darwin lied. And after that lie – as we have seen – his Darwinists self-servingly parroted the credulous (and fallacious as I have originally proven) lines :

        Mayr (1982 )

        ” it is therefore not surprising that neither Darwin nor any other biologist had ever encountered them until Matthew brought forward his claims in an article in 1860 in the Gardener’s Chronicle.”

        De Beer (1962):

        “Wells and Patrick Matthew were predecessors who had actually published the principle of natural selection in obscure places where their works remained completely unnoticed until Darwin and Wallace reawakened interest in the subject.”

        Like

      • Dysology says:

        And to make the logic of the implications of this facts as clear as I “apparently” can, what I wrote above in the CONTEXT, in which I unambiguously wrote it to make an unambiguous argument that Darwin lied and that his self-serving le influenced Darwinists to believe in that lie for 155 yearS. It has the same meaning under the circumstances and context of its use were I to have written the word “apparently” one more time into the text above.

        TO DEMONSTRATE:

        I just wrote:

        “Apparently not “apparently” to anyone else other than Darwin then? This seems so, because the only fact we know that helps us here is the concrete fact that before Darwin wrote that “apparently” line no one single person, no biologist and no naturalist whatsoever, anywhere, ever, had written that Matthew’s’ ideas were either unread or “apparently” unread.”

        But the meaning is the same in the argument I am making if had of written:

        “Apparently not “apparently” to anyone else other than Darwin then? This seems so, because the only fact we know that helps us here is the concrete fact that before Darwin wrote that “apparently” line APPARENTLY no one single person, no biologist and no naturalist whatsoever, anywhere, ever, had written that Matthew’s’ ideas were either unread or “apparently” unread.

        Like

      • Mike

        I’m afraid you appear to have an incurable case of “Loudon-Naturalist-Blindness”. The best we can do, “apparently” is to focus on the non-infected. I’m so sorry. But I’m sure you would like all the details: https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=23217

        Nihil cum dispexisset caecata scholalr

        Adieu scholalr aveuglé

        Like

  40. The Darwinist is “apparently” just as stupid when cornered by its own original stupidity.

    It seems that for the past 155 years Darwin and his Darwinists suffered from a previously undiagnosed cognitive condition called “Loudon-Naturalist-Blindness”. The condition caused Darwin to fail to see the name “Loudon” when Mathew wrote to him in the Gardener’s chronicle in 1860 to inform him that (1) Darwin had replicated Matthew’s (1831) original ideas and discovery of natural selection without citing him and (2) The naturalist Loudon had read those ideas and written a review of his book in 1832. and (3) that another (unnamed) naturalist had read Matthew’s book but feared to teach the heretical ideas on natural selection that are in it for fear of pillory punishment.

    The highly cognitively contagious nature of the condition is apparent in that Darwin totally ignored the Loudon factor when he later wrote that Matthew’s ideas had gone unread until 1860. Darwin then ignored Matthew’s second letter where he informed him of yet another, unnamed naturalist, from an eminent institution, who had read his original ideas.The disease thereafter spread in the literature as a toxic supermeme, evidenced by the fact that absolutely all the world’s Darwinists caught it like a cold in the head and so failed to see the significance of the words “Loudon” or “other naturalists” in Matthew’s letters to Darwin. Consequently for the past 155 years they have been writing that no biologists and no naturalists, or even no one at all, read Matthew’s ideas before Matthew told Darwin about them in 1860. In actual fact, after reviewing Matthew’s book in 1832, where he wrote:

    ‘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.’

    Loudon-Naturalist-Blindless, which is endemic in the Darwinist community has led to further cognitive degeneration known as “Institutional Stupidity”.

    COGNITIVE DEGENERATION URGENT HEALTH WARNING

    Scholars, ESPECIALLY STUDENTS, who are not infected are therefore advised to obtain full lifelong immunity from this apparently incurable condition by reading Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret. The book can be obtained, worldwide, from you nearest Amazon store.

    I am working on finding the cure, but to date have been unsuccessful in treating infected Darwinists,

    Like

  41. Visit http://t.co/HBDuKMbtdG for details regarding the vaccination programme and working towards a cure https://t.co/QEoA4yFip1— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) September 26, 2015

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Like

  42. Hi I am so delighted I found your blog page, I really found
    you by accident, while I was searching on Yahoo for something else,
    Anyhow I am here now and would just like to say thank you for a fantastic post
    and a all round entertaining blog (I also love the theme/design), I
    don’t have time to read it all at the minute but I have
    bookmarked it and also included your RSS feeds, so
    when I have time I will be back to read a lot more, Please do keep

    Diwali 2015

    Like

  43. Drs. Sutton and Weale

    The mystery of the relationship between Adam Duncan and Patrick Matthew’s Mother Anges Duncan is mostly. resolved…(basically in the 95 to 99 percentile range)…and much closer generationally than anticipated. For sure she is only two generations extended from the Alexander Duncan who like previous predecessors of the same given name was Provost of Dundee, and Laird of Lundie This particular Alexander Duncan was also husband to Helen Haldane of Gleneagles and Father of both Admiral Adam Duncan and Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Duncan. He was also brother to a George Duncan who quite possibly plays a significant part in this legacy.

    Before I continue on the closer than expected relationship, it’s necessary to explain that the estate of Gourdiehill is the key to solving the entire genealogy of Patrick Matthew. Four other estates in the area of the small villages of Errol and Scone are tied to the Duncan / Matthew immediate family and also play a role as well. They are the estates of Seaside, Rome, Auchmuir, and Errol Park Cottage, The connection to the Rome estate near Scone and now part of the grounds of Scone Palace is already well established. It was owned by the family of Patrick Matthew’s father John Matthew and was the birth place of P.M. There is no contradiction to that. Neither is there contradiction that the estate of Seaside was in 1662 purchased by the Alexander Duncan, Laird and Provost of Lundie and Dundee respectively at that particular time. This sale was due as a result of a forced sale of the lands in the estate of the Barony of Errol. The Earl of Errol having acquired heavy indebtedness trying to maintain a riotous lifestyle he couldn’t afford was forced to sell off major holdings in order to pay off a good deal of these debts. So this is how the estate of Seaside was acquired by the Lairds of Lundie prior to the time of Admiral Duncan and his own father. The enforcement of that sale was conducted by the Hay of Balhousie. It’s not important to discuss his role in all of this right now but later when we get to P.M.s direct linage to the Lords Oliphant and Robert de Bruce it will be important to recognize his role.

    I am going to stop here for the time being. I have an appointment with a friend to work on your Utah Packet Dr. Sutton so I will get back to this as soon as I can.

    Howard L. Minnick

    Liked by 1 person

  44. Dr. Weale

    Would you please explain to me why you disallowed my own response to the opening of Andy Sutton’s comments of 17 September which I purposefully wrote this morning to disagree about his dismissal and trivializing of any possible biological connection to Dr. Michael Sutton. Even if there actually isn’t …the fact that they are physically in and work in a close zone of proximity of each other still dictates that a hypothesis still exists that some sort of relationship which may be inclusive of informational influence or call it if you wish “knowledge contamination” does exist. I merely used my newly now proven factual information closely connecting biologically… as well as physically… Patrick Matthew and his estate of Gourdiehill to the family of Admiral Adam Duncan to open the door to what in reality could be an exponential of possibilities of informational transfer….which I could easily defend as having influenced P.M to have written ONT& A in the first place.

    I think you most definitely owe me a reasonable explanation Mike.

    Howard L. Minnick

    Like

    • Howard

      You are right.

      What has been going on is a subtle example of dysological poor scholarship and self-serving Darwinist cultural concealment of the truth. Because, Darwin started it in 1860 by lying that no one read Matthew’s original ideas (he knew full well that was a lie because Matthew wrote to tell him otherwise) – he continued from the third edition of the Origin of Species (darwin 1861) onwards where he lied again by claiming that Matthew’s original ideas had not been read before Matthew told him about them in 1860. It was a lie because in his two letter in the Gardeners Chronicle in 1860 Matthew informed Darwin of two naturalists who did read his ideas. And one – the internationally famous naturalist, botanist-biologist and polymath (a naturalist whose work was well known to Darwin and his great friends and mentors both the Hookers of Kew – because they cited Loudon frequently – and to Darwin because his private notebooks and correspondence extensively reference Loudon) cited Mathews book in 1832 – reviewed it where he cited it and said it appeared to have something original to say “on the origin of species” no less!

      Top scientists in the Royal Society, Linnean Society and the British Association for Advancement of Science (such as the Darwin Medal winners Sir Gavin de Beer and Ernst Mayr thereafter credulously deified Darwin and so parroted his lie that Matthew’s ideas went completely unread until 1860.

      In addition to the overwhelming evidence. from the newly discovered routes for Matthewian knowledge contamination of Darwin and his and Wallace’s ipe-1858 influencers that I uniquely discovered in 2014 (which Darwinists are now actively involved in ‘culturally concealing’ with their practiced MO of failing to engage with the disconfirming facts for their knowledge claims), what we have here is an example of 100 % proven science fraud by plagiarising “glory theft” perpetrated by Darwin from 1860 to the day of his death.

      Charels Darwin cleverly told his lies in order to cut the proven originator of the theory of macroevolution by natural selection out of the community of gentlemen of science. As the work of Robert K Meron shows when it comes to the topic of claimed multiple independent discoveries – being both first and cited is everything. Darwin could do nothing about Matthew being first so he told lies that he had not been cited.

      But I uniquely discovered (see ‘Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s Greatest Secret’) that Matthew’s 1831 book was cited – and it was 25 times at least pre-1858. The unique ideas in it were cited by Loudon in 1831. And (I uniquely discovered) Loudon went on to edit two of Blyth’ s influential papers. Blyth was Darwin’s greatest informant on evolution – he wrote as much from the third edition of the Origin of Species onwards. It was cited by Robert Chambers (another of my unique discoveries that Mike Weale seeks to dismiss as irrelevant because he claims it is weak evidence that Matthew might have influenced Darwin) in 1832 – and Chambers met and also influenced Darwin pre-1858 on the topic of organic evolution and wrote the best-selling ‘Vestiges of Creation’ – a book that Millhauser claims put ‘evolution in the air’ in the mid-19th century- before Darwin. And Matthew’s ideas were read by Selby who cited Matthews book in the 1840s and then edited Wallace’s’ 1855 Sarawak paper on the topic of organic evolution. Darwin’s lies successfully kept all of these newly discovered facts well hidden for 155 years.

      I have a draft sociological paper on this story well under way. It explores these historical and most recent cases of cultural concealment of the facts – including the subtle job done in Mike Weale’s Linnean paper – which deliberately avoids the New Data, which I discovered, by claiming it is merely weak evidence that Matthew influenced Darwin without explaining why its author Mike Weale thinks so. That such an unevidenced claim about such important game-changing new data in the story of the claimed independent tri-discovery of the natural selection was allowed in a peer reviewed science paper on that precise topic speaks volumes for the continuance of cultural concealment of the facts by Darwinists. That Darwin’s biographer professor Moore commented in the Daily Telegraph (without – presumably – bothering to check the facts to the contrary) that he doubted anything new had been discovered – a comment that biased Darwin deifying Wikipedia editors present (to their credulous shame) as though it is a definitive truth on the issue – when it is actually easily proven to be nonsense on stilts is further evidence of palpable and shameless cultural concealment of Matthew’s right to be considered not the third but in fact the first and foremost original great thinker and influencer in the field of macro evolution by natural selection.

      As I have said many times before: ‘history will not be kind to these pseudo-scholarly glory-stealing Darwinists’.

      And – as you know Howard – the eminent public stage where this story is going to be told next year will set the truth amongst the shameless self-serving career oriented facilitators of claptrap in the history of discovery of natural selection like a fox in the chicken house.

      Get the 100% independently verifiable new facts that disconfirm fallacious Darwinist ‘knowledge -claims’ here: http://patrickmatthew.com/

      Like

    • mikeweale says:

      ??? I haven’t disallowed anything Howard. I think you owe me an explanation. What’s your problem?

      Like

      • Dr. Weale
        I’m not one to call someone a liar. I will however put up a challenge if I deem it appropriate. If you say that you did not disallow my response then I will be disposed to accept you at your word. The technology at times does frustrate me…. especially on some days when the cyber seems to be hyper active and the transmission seems to take forever which I have seen many times. Despite the cleaning sweep ware and the removal of non essential files on a weekly to by weekly basis problems do continue to exist on certain days. On that particular transmission it took a couple of minutes before it went through…but when it seemed that it had I left only to find later when I started my next that it was no longer there. how all of that works sometimes escapes me. Some sites I have been on indicate when you send that your remarks would be subject to review before acceptance…usually up to 15 minutes. I have also on only a few occasions had messages sent likewise to myself that I didn’t receive. God knows I’m not infallible so there must be some other explanation.

        Howard Minnicl

        Like

  45. Seasonal Greetings to all Dysological Darwinists: A Gift of Veracity to remove the Cataract from your Atrophied Unscientific Biassed Blissful Brains to be ignored if you wish to further your career at the expense of the truth.

    My gift to you is this advice:

    Don’t engage with the facts if you wish to win a Royal Society Darwin Medal. Instead, you must mindlessly parrot Darwin’s deliberate lie that no one read Patrick Matthew’s original ideas on natural selection before 1860. Never mention the newly100% proven fact that Darwin committed plagiarising science fraud by glory theft from 1860 until the day he died. Never mention the new evidence that he more likely than not plagiarised Matthew’s ideas from the start, and never mention the fact that there are newly discovered routes of knowledge contamination which prove Matthew’s ideas could have influenced Darwin and Wallace in several ways – innocently (cryptomnesia), negligently and recklessly through those they knew who read them and cited Matthew’s book before Darwin or Wallace published a word on the topic. If you mention any of the above then no esteemed peer-reviewed journal in your field will publish your work and you will be deemed a “disruptive person” by the Church of Darwin, which controls the Royal Society. Linnean Society, the British Association for the Advancement of Science and many other organisations and university departments.

    So read on at peril to your career, but for the salvation of your intellectual integrity – if you dare.

    On Patrick Matthew

    Pierre Bourdieu famously wrote ‘The function of sociology, as of every science, is to reveal that which is hidden’. This book reveals that which was once hidden. ‘Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret’ is a book based on new discoveries that I made using hi-tech Big Data research methods. My book reveals that long neglected publications -culturally concealed from you by Darwin’s lies about who read Matthew’s book. Lies that have been parroted by your most esteemed Royal Society Darwin Medal winning heroes Sir Gavin de Beer and Ernst Mayr. Bit these publications are now re-discovered, and they re-write the history of the discovery of natural selection. In light of what has been unearthed in these publications, the orthodox Darwinist account for why we should believe Charles Darwin’s and Alfred Wallace’s stories of their independent discoveries of Patrick Matthew’s prior published hypothesis is newly proven to be completely wrong. The Darwinist account is wrong simply because the premises upon which it rests are newly punctured myths.

    It doesn’t matter how beautiful the theory of natural selection is. It doesn’t matter how smart Charles Darwin, attributed with its independent discovery was. It doesn’t matter what the majority view is. If it doesn’t agree with the independently verifiable facts about who really did read Patrick Matthew’s prior published discovery and hypothesis of natural selection, and when, the Darwinist story that no such people read it is wrong. And that means the story of Darwin’s independent discovery of natural selection is wrong. And it is wrong because it is based on the newly disproven premise that no one Darwin knew, or was influenced by, or who his influencers were influenced by, read Matthew’s original ideas and explanatory examples before he replicated them.

    Prior to the publication of the original findings in my book, the history of the discovery of natural selection was founded upon the fixed-false-belief (knowledge claim) 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. Of that number, Darwin new four well and three (Selby, Chambers and Loudon) played roles at the very epicentre of influence on Darwin and Wallace. Several mentioned Matthew’s original ideas on natural selection and one who cited the book, Robert Chambers, went on to write the best-selling book on evolution – the Vestiges of Creation (1844), which influenced Darwin and Wallace on the topic and put evolution ‘in the air’ in the mid 19th century. Loudon edited two of Blyth’s influential articles and Selby edited Wallace’s Sarawak paper. Hence, it is newly discovered that probable Matthewian knowledge contamination of the minds of Darwin and Wallace creates a new paradigm in the history of scientific discovery.

    Dr Mike Weale claims this is “weak evidence” that Matthew influenced Darwin or Wallace with his prior published discovery. Do you feel comfortable parroting that? If you do then you might win a Royal Society Darwin Medal. But you most certainly won’t win one for engaging with the facts – that’s for sure.

    Further newly discovered evidence, that you should not ever cite if you want to win a Darwin Medal – including a detailed plagiarism check, six lies Darwin told, and Wallace’s doctoring of a letter in his autobiography – strongly suggests 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 new-evidence-led website: PatrickMatthew.com

    Merry Xmas

    Like

  46. My Christmas Present to the Sandlot Ostriches of the Bishop of All Things Darwin… is a quote from Huxley.

    So to You and Your’s:

    Merry Christmas and a Very Happy New Year !!!

    ” You have no idea of the intrigues that go on in this blessed world
    of science. For instance, I know that the paper I have just sent in
    is very original and of some importance, and I am equally sure that
    if it is referred to the judgment of my ‘particular friend’ Professor Owen
    that it will not be published. He won’t be able to say a word against it,
    but he will pooh-pooh it to a dead certainty.”

    A Letter from Huxley to a friend
    The Encyclopedia of Evolution ( 1990 )

    Howard L. Minnick
    Major, ENGR
    United States Army
    & 3rd Great Grandson of Patrick Matthew

    Like

  47. Merry Christmas Dr. Weale…and a Happy New Year as well.

    I’ll post after the holidays my finding sources that definitively show that Admiral Duncan was a previous inherited owner of Gourdiehill within 1-2 generations of Patrick Matthew inheriting it through his mother Agnes Duncan. Please note all of the following… especially that P.M. was 14 years old when Admiral Duncan died…and 17 when he inherited Gourdiehill and immediately set about planting what would become one of the finest orchards… with over 10,000 apple and pear trees…in all of the British empire…and not to mention the seedling stock being sent to his sons in both New Zealand and the two estates in Swheslig Holstein where pioneering orchards were also started in what is now the region around Hamburg, Germany. Also will show where to find and make the connections that directly ties him through this “Duncan” linage directly back to Robert de Bruce through Robert’s daughter Elizabeth de Bruce and Walter Oliphant the son of William Oliphant, Lord Captain and Castle Keep of Sterling Castle at the time of William Wallace’s… (Braveheart)… defeat of Edward Longshanks at Sterling Bridge. So much for the “oh so” redundant Darwin myth of Patrick Matthew being “obscure.” The obscureness of both of his books is also fast becoming redundantly mythological as well with the recent discovery of the Artificial verses Natural selection analogies that are in fact right in the very works of ONT&A…as well as Milton Wainwright’s discovery that P. M. even pre-empted Louis Pasteur’s germ theory. I would think with all of this newly forthcoming information and the more that I’m sure will follow that one would most definitely need to rather contemplate which side of the fence they really should decide to be on.

    Howard L. Minnick
    Major, ENGR
    United States Army
    & 3rd Great Grandson of Patrick Matthew

    P.S. Here’s another great quote from General George Washington during a secret rendezvous with General Gauge when Gauge asked the favor of being allowed to retreat with his men and depart with the Royal fleet from Boston Harbor after the sounding defeat of the British at Bunkerhill. Guage had just reminded Washington that they once had stood together around many a bonfire during the French and Indian wars. All Washington had to say before they parted was…

    “That was then General Gage…this is the new reality now.”

    Like

  48. The problem is Howard that evolutionary biologists have got themselves into an embarrassing “State of Denial” about the sufficient evidence that Matthew did influence Darwin and Wallace.

    When Darwin lied (writing the very opposite to the fact we 100% know he knew to be true that two naturalists had read Matthew’s original ideas on natural selection and one cited him) that Matthew’s ideas hade been completely unread he convinced his readers by such lying that Matthew could not have influenced him or Wallace or any of their pre-1858 influencers, According to Cohen such convincing lying reinforces the liars own denial of the real facts (Cohen, S 2001 ‘States of Denial’ page 31). This makes Darwin’s lie malevolent (Cohen p, 22) because he knew all the facts but blatantly lied to conceal the truth: https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=23118%2c23118

    Incidentally, besides in fact having his 1831 book cited by seven naturalists pre 1858 (as opposed to the Darwinist version that none read his ideas) the originator of natural selection, Patrick Matthew most likely influenced Herbert Spencer (via Robert Chambers one of those seven naturalists). See: http://patrickmatthew.com/herbert%20spencer.html

    What does this tell us about the reaction so far of evolutionary biologists to the New Data that proves there were routes for knowledge contamination from Matthew’s 1831 to Darwin and Wallace via the four naturalists they knew who read Matthew’s book and cited it pre 1858 and years before they published a word on the topic. Cohen (p. 22) helps us interpret what it means: ‘Denial is always partial, some information is always registered. This paradox – or doubleness – knowing and not knowing is the heart of the concept. It creates what Wurmser nicely calls ‘Pseudo-stupidity.’ And we have seen plenty of that on this website in various attempts to spin the obvious significance of the new facts into a comfort blanket of denial that they have any significance at all – despite the fact they completely puncture the myth upon which Darwinists have built their paradigm of belief in Darwin’s and Wallace’s claims to have each independently discovered Matthew’s prior-published original ideas. Ideas which we now newly know their influencers and friends read and cited. See: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nullius-Verba-Darwins-Greatest-Secret-ebook/dp/B00M5DP46U

    It seems to me – after reading Stanley Cohen’s excellent book “States of Denial: Knowing about atrocities and suffering’ – that such biased scholarship creates an enabling environment for all kinds of dangerous quackery and claptrap, as well as a dysological pseudo-scholarly soup in which hate crime can grow and flourish. If this turns out to be the case, then evolutionary biologists – writing disproven fallacies on the history of discovery of natural selection – are just one micro-culture of scholars who are unwittingly (or perhaps half-wittedly) making the world a dangerous and unpleasant place in which to live. See: https://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=23475

    Like

  49. Dr. Weale

    Without malice I highly recommend that you strongly contemplate your position now verses the advent of the change in the obvious forthcoming of what will become… a new reality.

    See PDF University Of Dundee Doctor of Philosophy Rural_Young_ phd_2004_Discovery

    Doctor of Philosophy

    Rural Society in Scotland from the Restoration to the Union
    -Challenge and response in the Carse of Gowrie 1660-1707

    Mary Young

    PHD

    2004

    University of Dundee

    You’ll want to read the entire 319 pages Mike. This is a fascinating document. One of the best pieces of research that I have ever seen. I’ll clue you to one very significant segment then leave the rest to you to fully research why it suddenly becomes a game changer as far as any redundant obscurity myths of Patrick Matthew or his books are concerned. Understanding this document will help you understand why both Darwin and Patrick Matthew married first cousins as well as the Scottish reformation of the older feudal system. The significant part I mentioned is but just one of several to be found in these pages… but it shows that Patrick Matthew through his mother Agnes Duncan inheriting Gourdiehill only 3 years after the passing of Admiral Adam Duncan is far more significant when you consider that Admiral Adam Duncan was the previous owner of Gourdiehill. Pages 108-113 give you a small insight to that significance. Pages 74 -88 are but just another. You will need to read the book Historical Castles and Mansions of Scotland and pay attention to the Chapter on Dupplin Castle to grasp the connection especially of the Hay of Balhousie and the Lords of Oliphant that takes P.M.s direct Duncan linage to Robert de Bruce.

    Good Hunting Mike

    Howard L. Minnick
    Major, ENGR
    United States Army
    & 3rd Great Grandson of Patrick Matthew

    Like

    • mikeweale says:

      Howard, thank you for your continuing researches into Patrick Matthew’s family history. For the benefit of other readers, the link to Mary Young’s PhD thesis is here.

      Like

    • mikeweale says:

      The thesis by Mary Young makes several references to the “Matthew of Gourdiehill” papers, indexed in the National Archives of Scotland under Catalogue Number GD316. It would be fascinating to get hold of these papers, to further illuminate P.M.’s family history.

      Like

      • Dr. Weale,

        I’m not sure if there are other papers in GD316 other than those letters from Charles Darwin to Patrick Matthew that Ian Hardie found in the estate affairs while he was the executer Trustee in charge of the estate of John Matthew in the late 1990’s and realizing their significance gave to the Scottish National Archives for safe keeping. You might want to ask Ian about that.

        Like

      • Dr. Weale,

        As far as Patrick Matthew’s family life goes Wulf Gerdt’s two volume Die Matthew Saga is a treasure trove of family letters and historical information exchanged back and forth across oceans…though half are written in a mixture of Dutch and German that we can’t possibly understand or have any inkling of…which is why we need to get those critical parts translated. Dr. Sutton is working on getting funding to do that so eventually and hopefully that will happen sooner than later.

        Like

      • By the way Dr. Weale…today Jan 1st 2016 is the 185th Anniversary of the Publication On Naval Timber and Arboriculture.

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        Dear Howard, thanks for your replies. To respond in turn:

        1) I think the GD316 papers must contain other things, because Mary Young cites them in regards to affairs at the Goudiehill estate in the 17th/18th centuries. It may be possible to ask the Scottish National Archives to photocopy/scan these papers for us – it would be worth looking into.

        2) I have a “Google Translated” version of Vol 1 of Wulf Gerdts’ Matthew Saga. If you provide me with your email I’ll be happy to send you a copy. Alternatively, ask Mike Sutton as he already has a copy. Just to confirm what you say about how important Wulf’s research is, at one point in Vol 1 he refers to a pamphlet he wrote, I think in the 1990’s, in which he comes to the same conclusion as the one you’ve referred to several times – namely that P.M. is a direct descendent of Robert the Bruce. If you contact Mrs Gerdts she may be able to provide you with a copy of this pamphlet.

        3) Indeed, happy 185th ONTA anniversary everyone!

        Like

      • I just got off the internet with Margot Gerdts a couple of hours ago… all the fireworks in her neighborhood last night really upset her dog and she peed all over the house. Honestly, I thought you already had my email. I’ll send it to your email address…and heck yes let’s look into seeing what actually is in GD 316.

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        Howard, you’re right I do have your email address in my email client – I’ve sent you the Google-Translate version of Wulf Gerdts’ Matthew Saga Vol 1.

        Like

    • mikeweale says:

      Howard, I have more info regarding GD316 “Records of the Matthew family of Gourdiehill, Perthshire”. The National Archives of Scotland are now called the “National Records of Scotland”. The catalogue record is described here:
      http://catalogue.nrscotland.gov.uk/nrsonlinecatalogue/overview.aspx?st=1&tc=y&tl=n&tn=n&tp=n&k=&ko=a&r=GD316&ro=s&df=&dt=&di=y

      I’ve emailed National Records of Scotland to ask for a quote on photocopying costs. The full record details are copied below. Looks to me like a treasure trove of family information.

      GD316
      Records of the Matthew family of Gourdiehill, Perthshire
      1580-1964
      Title deeds of lands of Gourdiehill, Perthshire, and other legal papers, 1643-1823; Miscellaneous legal papers concerning the Duncan family, including testaments etc, 1580-1862; Correspondence, 1807-1913, including letters to Francis Duncan of Gourdiehill, some from his son Patrick Duncan, ship’s surgeon, 1731-1746; Miscellaneous papers relating to the Matthew family, 1799-1890; Genealogical papers, c1590-1880; Diaries, 1762-1782; Correspondence concerning the collection, 1955-1964.

      GD316/1 Miscellaneous titles, bonds, tacks and other legal and estate papers relating to the lands of Gourdiehill in parish of Errol, Perthshire, belonging to the Duncan family. 19 items. 1643-1823 This record is Open.

      GD316/2 Miscellaneous titles, bonds and tacks relating to the Duncan family of and in Goddlieburn, Mains of Errol and others, 1676-1862. 6 items. 1676-1862 This record is Open.

      GD316/3 Bonds relating to the Duncan family. 1656-1774 This record is Open.

      GD316/4 Assignations and discharges, mainly relating to the Duncan family. 18 items. 1660-1828 This record is Open.

      GD316/5 Testaments and dispositions of the Duncan family, including an account of expense of confirming the testament of Francis Duncan of Gourdiehill, 1760. 19 items. 1662-1860 This record is Open.

      GD316/6 Marriage contracts and others, mainly concerning the Duncan and Dickson families 1580-1720 This record is Open.

      GD316/7 Legal and other papers, including: Letter of presentation by Thomas Hay of Balhousie of George Moncreiffe his chamberlain to the chaplainry of Aberdagie, 2 Apr 1683; Agreement between the parties that the true intent of the above transaction was that the stipend should be available to the kirk session of Aberdagie for maintenance of a schoolmaster, 28 May 1683; apprentice indenture of Francis Duncan to William Read, merchant in Dundee, 9 Aug 1703. 16 items. 1658-1835 This record is Open.

      GD316/8 Bonds and discharges, including discharges for feu and tack duties, and including: papers relating to a mortification by Mr Samuel Nairn, in his wife’s name, to the kirk session of Erroll and a bond granted by George Duncan in seaside thereon, 1697. 44 items. 1587-1717 This record is Open.

      GD316/9 Papers mainly relating to Francis Duncan of Gourdiehill, his eldest son Alexander and younger son Andrew, brewer in Dundee, 1760-91, but also concerning earlier members of the family in Seaside and Gourdiehill, 1714-91. 28 items. 1714-1791 This record is Open.

      GD316/10 Miscellaneous papers (mainly tacks), mainly relating to the Duncan family. Including: acrostic on names of Master James Duncan and Marjorie Pay, with respectful Latin letter to him on regaining his health, 17 Oct 1650; copy Remonstrance by the Committee of Estates to the gentlemen, commanders and ministers attending the forces in the West, 1650; two copies of Wariston’s speech from the scaffold, 22 July 1663; inventory of the biggins of Seaside (house of hall, kitchen and several chambers; a house ‘of three trees’ at the west side of the close, also stable, byres, swine house, barn and peise barn, and several cottar or like houses), with estimate (in bolls meal) for repair; page of court book of Alexander Duncan of Lundie, 7 July 1709; inventory of evidents of houses of Robert Duncan in Kirktoun of Erroll, held by him of Northesk, c.1706; ‘The Genealogie of the Lord Oliphant as it was written in the castell of Duplin’ [17 cent.]; disposition of a seat in Aberdagie church, 3 Oct. 1691; list of the ‘barron trees’ on the lands of Gourdiehill, 6 June 1701; copy or draft letter as to the effects of George Duncan, Jamaica, 1763; [Hay of] Balhousie’s letter to Mr James Duncan ‘anent the making of Thomas Keltie’s compts after his death’, 15 Feb 1679; notebook of scriptural computation by Andrew Duncan, 1698, containing lock of hair; ‘List of poll money upon the lands of Seasyde [Seaside], Achinvy and Gourdiehill in the parish of Erroll belonging to the laird of Lundie’ [1696]. 29 items. 1650-[1870] This record is Open.

      GD316/11 Letters to Francis Duncan of Gourdiehill, mainly from his son Patrick Duncan, a ship’s surgeon. Including: account of Patrick’s first joining a ship, of a break-out by blacks from a factory on the Guinea Coast, and of shipwreck, 1734-40; three letters from his son Alexander Duncan, a seaman, referring to activity of press-gang (War of Austrian Succession) and enquiring (June 1746) about a report that 20,000 men had landed in Scotland with the Pretender, 1744-6; letters from James Johnston, London, concerning his third son, Francis, 1739; letters from Patrick Johnston, Auchterhouse, on legal and estate affairs, 1731. 21 items. 1731-1746 This record is Open.

      GD316/12 Letters and papers of the Matthew and Nicol families (mainly from Thomas Matthew, c.1823). Including: an account for silver spoons, 1819; account ‘for leys stocking, Mr P Playfair to Mr Nicol’, 1827; account and inventory of the estate of John Matthew, tenant in Rome, who died 1 Nov 1807; Agnes Nicol’s Act of Dedication and accompanying prayer [1826?]. 36 items. 1807-1884 This record is Open.

      GD316/13 As in GD316/13 (mainly relating to the financial affairs of Euphemia Matthew, 1904-13). 22 items. 1894-1913 This record is Open.

      GD316/14 Papers (mainly undated) relating to the Matthew Family, mainly copies of verses (English, German and Spanish) and knitting [?], lace, and cake-icing recipes, probably all belonging to Agnes Matthew,1840. c1840-1890 This record is Open.

      GD316/15 Miscellaneous papers mainly relating to the Matthew family. 1799-1863 This record is Open.

      GD316/16 Family trees and other genealogical papers relating mainly to Johnston, Nicol and Matthew families, and covering c.1590-1880, but mainly 1740-1880. 33 items. 20th Century This record is Open.

      GD316/17 Papers (mainly c.1825) relating to the financial affairs of the Matthew family of Gourdiehill, 1808-30 and n.d., including inventory of an unspecified house. 22 items. 1808-1830 This record is Open.

      GD316/18 Two ‘Diaries’: (1) 1764-8 and 1762-3 (written from back), and (2) 1762-82. Both relate dreams and reflections on Scripture etc. 1762-1782 This record is Open.

      GD316/19 Autographs: Andre Maginot; President Kruger (1891); Field- Marshal Weygand (on note to Lt. Col. Haig, authorising him to visit French lines at Nieuport); Sir Douglas Haig (letter to his brother, commenting on the situation at Ypres, 6 Nov 1914); J C Smuts. 19th century-20th century This record is Open.

      GD316/20 Photocopies of papers from the above bundles and from others not now in the collection. Including Confirmation by Roger, bishop elect of St Andrews, to Galfrid de Pert of the church of Rossinclerach (with seal), quoted by Laing as being in General Hutton’s collection and dated 1188. Note that typescripts of this item, and that of a letter by J W Smith, Camp Pratt, 1863 (see GD316/15) are not accurate. List of ‘Sundry letters and other papers, Duncan Archives’. 20th Century This record is Open.

      GD316/21 Correspondence (4 letters) of the Rev. William Hulbert in connection with the documents – with old lists and notes concerning the documents. 1955-1964 This record is Open.

      Like

      • Doctors Sutton and Weale,

        This information that Dr. Mary Young has led us to is absolutely breath taking and this is only the Archive listing. Can you imagine actually seeing the real documents. The one that most catches my eye is part of GD316/10 the actual Genealogy document of the Lords Oliphant that Patrick Matthew’s daughter Euphemia actually produced for the Author of ‘Historical Castle’s and Mansions of Scotland’ (1890)…the one that I previously referenced that extends the Matthew- Duncan linage back directly to Robert de Bruce through William Oliphant the Castle Keep of Sterling Castle at the time of William Wallace’s (Braveheart) defeat of Edward Longshanks at Sterling Bridge. Looks like the two of you have some work to do and some more squabbling as well. “Isn’t Life Just Grand”…? Too bad Mary Young herself isn’t here to share in our delight !!!

        Howard L. Minnick
        Major, ENGR
        United States Army
        & 3rd Great Grandson of Patrick Matthew

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        For the benefit of other readers, the genealogy referred to by Howard Minnick above, as provided by Euphemia Matthew to the author of “The historical castles and mansions of Scotland: Perthshire and Forfarshire” (1890), is available here:
        http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044081258915;view=1up;seq=144

        Like

      • mikeweale says:

        Howard and Mike, I’ve heard back from Scottish National Records. They say they can only process 5 sub-records at any one time. Presumably you both could make your own submissions and obtain other records, but I propose to ask for the following records, as I’m more interested in records which coincide with P.M.’s lifetime:
        GD316/5
        /12
        /15
        /16
        /17
        Let me know if this sounds OK to you

        Like

      • I have no problem with that since we will be sharing the information obtained…Right???

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: