Selective memories: Charles Darwin, obsession, and Internet dating

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines ‘obsession’ as “(i) a state in which someone thinks about someone or something constantly or frequently especially in a way that is not normal; (ii) someone or something that a person thinks about constantly or frequently, [and] (iii) an activity that someone is very interested in or spends a lot of time doing”. By these definitions my good friend and work colleague Dr. Mike Sutton would himself admit that he has had (for the last three or four years) an obsession with the work of English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809-1882) and Scottish landowner and fruit farmer Patrick Matthew (1790-1874). Dr. Sutton is a criminologist and we have published various articles and book chapters over the last 15 years on various topics including emails with unintended consequences, far right wing groups on the internet, and (most recently) the crime substitution hypothesis (which I’ve covered in a previous blog).

Over the past few years, I can’t think of a single conversation that we have had that both Darwin and Matthew’s didn’t get talked about at some point. In 2014, Sutton published his book Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s Greatest Secret (“Nullius in verba” is Latin for “on the word of no one” or “take nobody’s word for it”) and as a result of it has experienced a torrent of verbal abuse on social media. So why has Dr. Sutton been the victim of such abuse? In a nutshell, Sutton has asserted that Darwin is a fraud and that his main thesis on natural selection was stolen from Matthew without any acknowledgement. Furthermore, using a new methodological technique that Sutton developed, he believes Darwin lied about his knowledge of Matthew’s work.

Over the last few years, I have read over a dozen of Sutton’s online articles about Darwin and Matthew, and I was also one of the first people to read Sutton’s book before it was published. Sutton’s work is meticulous, rigorous, and fully referenced. Most of his critics have never read (or simply don’t want to read) his book. Instead they appear to take potshots at his research and reputation without bothering to read the original source.

The first thing to note concerns Sutton’s methodology. His method – sometimes referred to ‘internet dating’ in his articles (but nothing to with people meeting up online, so apologies if the use of the words ‘internet dating’ in my article lured you to read this blog on false pretences) but called ‘Internet Date-Detection’ (ID) in his book – relies on the 30+ million books and documents that the Google Books Library Project has digitized and dating back centuries. Using the ID method, Sutton has used a search engine to track down obscure books, articles, and letters (and short phrases within these documents) to work out who published what and when with pinpoint accuracy. (For instance, back in the 1990s, I thought I had first coined the word ‘screenager’ but Sutton used his ID method and proved that others before me had used the word in print prior to my own articles).

The second thing to note is that all Darwinists concede that the process of natural selection was first written about in Patrick Matthew’s 1831 book On Naval Timber and Arboriculture (written 28 years before Darwin’s 1859 book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection). However, Darwin claimed he had never read the book (which might be the case) but also claimed in 1860, 1861, and in every edition of the Origin of Species thereafter, that no other naturalist, and no one at all, in the preceding 28 years had read Matthew’s original ideas on macroevolution by natural selection because it was buried away in the book’s appendix. Darwin claimed he had independently formulated the theory of evolution through natural selection. At around the same time as Darwin, the naturalist Alfred Wallace (1823-1913) also (independently of Darwin and supposedly of Matthew) developed a theory of natural selection and together their papers were read on their behalf before the Linnean Society, and then published in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnaean Society of London in 1858.

Using 21st century search engine technology via his ID method, Sutton originally discovered that – as opposed to the various claims of Darwin and the world’s leading Darwin scholars that no naturalists (or no one at all) read Matthew’s (1831) original ideas before 1858 – in fact Matthew’s book was cited 25 times before that date, seven of whom were naturalists, four of whom were known to Darwin and Wallace, and three that played major roles and had major influence on the exact same topic (botanist Prideaux John Selby, publisher and geologist Robert Chambers, and botanist John Loudon).

Like Sutton, a number of recent scholars – most notably the microbiologist Dr. Milton Wainwright – have researched some of the same historical ground as Sutton (arguing that Darwin and Wallace were beaten to a theory of macroevolution by Matthew). Whereas Wainwight wrote his papers after reading some of the original key texts from the early 1800s, Sutton used the ID technique to collate every single book, article and letter written by anyone in the period up to 1859 that had been digitized in the Google Books Library Project. What Sutton found is fascinating and does seem to indicate that Darwin lied about his knowledge of Matthew’s work. Darwin certainly lied after 1860 by claiming that no naturalist had read Matthew’s ideas because Matthew had twice written to inform Darwin that the opposite was true. Using the ID method, Sutton conclusively demonstrated that:

  • Matthew’s original (1831) theory concerning the “natural process of selection” was only slightly different to Darwin’s (1859) the “process of natural selection”. Darwin also used the same analogy as Matthew had written in the opening chapter of Origin of the Species when discussing artificial versus natural selection, but claimed the analogy as his own without citing Matthew.
  • Matthew’s prior-published conception of macroevolution by natural selection was not unread by naturalists and biologists before Darwin and Wallace replicated it. In fact, seven people cited the book in the pre-1859 literature, and Darwin and Wallace (and their influencers) knew four of these people well.
  • Matthew’s conception of natural selection was not just contained solely in the appendix of his 1831 book but was also in the main text. In fact, Matthew even referred Darwin to some of the relevant extracts in the main text of his book (something that Darwin admitted in a letter to his closest friend Joseph Hooker [1817-1911], the botanist and explorer). In short, Darwin lied when he asserted that Matthew’s ideas were only contained in the appendix of his book.

Sutton has been trying to get the Royal Society to acknowledge Matthew as the originator of the macroevolution by natural selection. Sutton notes in his essay on Rational Wiki:

“As Robert Merton (1957) made clear in the classic and authoritative text on priority in science, the Royal Society has not officially changed its position on the rules of priority since those rules were established in the first half of the 19th century. Since that time, the Arago Effect (Strevens 2003), is the rule that has always been seen as a totally inflexible principle and has been followed as such in all other disputes over priority for discovery in science, except in the Matthew, Darwin and Wallace case. The Arago Effect, described by Merton, and also by Strevens, as a norm in cases of scientific discovery, is that being first to publish to the public, and most importantly in print, is everything when it comes to deciding who has priority for an idea or discovery in cases where one scientist claims to have made the same discovery independently of another”.

In the same essay, Sutton then discusses Richard Dawkins‘s reasoning for not giving Matthew priority of scientific discovery (i.e., that his work went “unnoticed”):

“Totally ignoring the Arago Effect convention of priority for scientific discovery, Richard Dawkins (2010) has built upon prior rationale for denying Matthew full priority over Darwin by creating a new, unique in the history of scientific discovery, ‘Dawkins’s Demand Rule’. Effectively, Dawkins demands that Matthew should not have priority over Darwin and Wallace based upon the recently proven fallacious premise (Sutton 2014) that Matthew’s unique views went unnoticed. Moreover, Dawkins demands also that Matthew should have ‘trumpeted his discovery from the rooftops’. However in making this post-hoc demand, Dawkins does not, as other writers (e.g. Desmond and Moore 1991; Secord 2000) have done with regard to the fears and difficulties of writing on natural selection at this time, which faced Darwin and Chambers, explain that the first half of the 19th century was a time of great social unrest, tension and violent rioting, which made writing on the topic of natural selection a great threat to the social controlling interests of natural theology. Is Dawkins willfully ignorant of the fact that in the year 1794 Pitt passed his notorious Two Acts against ‘Seditious Meetings’ and ‘Treasonable Practices’? In particular, the former curtailed topics of discussion at institutional scientific societies by requiring them to be licensed and proscribing discussion of either religion or politics (Sutton 2015). Perhaps it is for reasons of historical ignorance that Richard Dawkins, whilst holding forth as an expert on the history of science, fails also to address the issue that Matthew’s Chartist political ideas were in his book and that he linked these seditious ideas quite clearly to the implications of his heretical natural selection discovery. Consequently, it should go without saying, that this meant his unique ideas were especially both seditious and heretical in the 1830s and 1840s. How then was Matthew meant to trumpet his discovery when he had effectively silenced himself from doing so under the scientific conventions that followed in the wake of the laws of the land? Matthew explained this very fact to Darwin in 1860, in his second letter in the Gardeners’ Chronicle”.

My own reading of all Sutton’s work is that there is no good reason for Matthew not to be credited with being the originator of the theory of macroevolution by natural selection and that Matthew has full priority over Darwin and Wallace.

Dr. Mark Griffiths, Professor of Behavioural Addiction, International Gaming Research Unit, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK

Further reading

Darwin. C.R. (1859). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London. John Murray.

Darwin, C.R. & Wallace, A.R. (1858) On the tendency of species to form varieties; and on the perpetuation of varieties and species by natural means of selection. Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnaean Society of London.

Dawkins, R. (2010). Darwin’s five bridges: The way to natural selection. In Bryson, B (ed.), Seeing Further: The Story of Science and the Royal Society. London: Harper Collins.

Desmond, A. & Moore, J. (1991). Darwin. London. Penguin Books.

Griffiths, M.D. & Sutton, M. (2013). Proposing the Crime Substitution Hypothesis: Exploring the possible causal relationship between excessive adolescent video game playing, social networking and crime reduction. Education and Health, 31, 17-21.

Griffiths, M.D. & Sutton, M. (2015). Screen time and crime: The ‘Crime Substitution Hypothesis’ revisited. Education and Health, 33, 85-87.

Matthew, P. (1831) On Naval Timber and Arboriculture; With a critical note on authors who have recently treated the subject of planting. Edinburgh. Adam Black.

Matthew, P. (1860). Nature’s Law of Selection (Letter). The Gardeners’ Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette, 7 April, pp. 312-313.

Matthew, P. (1860). Nature’s Law of Selection (Letter), Gardeners’ Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette, 12 May, p. 433.

Merton, R.K. (1957) Priorities in scientific discovery: A chapter in the sociology of science. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 635-659.

Secord. J.A. (2000). Victorian Sensation: The Extraordinary Reception, and Secret Authorship of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Strevens, M. (2003) The role of priority in science. Journal of Philosophy, 100, 55-79.

Sutton, M. (2014). Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s Greatest Secret. Thinker Books.

Sutton, M. (2016). On knowledge contamination: New data challenges claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s independent conceptions of Matthew’s prior-published hypothesis. Filozoficzne Aspekty Genezy (Aspects of Origin), 12: Located at

Sutton, M. (2016). Patrick Matthew: priority and the discovery of natural selection. Located at:

Sutton, M. (2016). Darwin’s Greatest Secret Exposed: Response to Grzegorz Malec’s De Facto fact denying review of my book. Filozoficzne Aspekty Genezy (Aspects of Origin), 13, 1-10. Located at:

Sutton, M. & Griffiths, M.D. (2002). Far Right Groups on the Internet: A new problem for crime control and community safety? The Criminal Lawyer, 123, 3-5.

Sutton, M. & Griffiths, M.D. (2003). Emails with unintended criminal consequences. The Criminal Lawyer, 130, 6-8.

Sutton, M. & Griffiths, M.D. (2004). Emails with unintended consequences: New lessons for policy and practice in work, public office and private life. In P. Hills (Ed.). As Others See Us: Selected Essays In Human Communication (pp. 160-182). Dereham: Peter Francis Publishers.

Wainwright, M. (2008) Natural selection: It’s not Darwin’s (or Wallace’s) theory. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences, 15(1), 1-8

Wainwright, M. (2011). Charles Darwin: Mycologist and refuter of his own myth. FUNGI, 4(1), 13-20.

About drmarkgriffiths

Professor MARK GRIFFITHS, BSc, PhD, CPsychol, PGDipHE, FBPsS, FRSA, AcSS. Dr. Mark Griffiths is a Chartered Psychologist and Professor of Behavioural Addiction at the Nottingham Trent University, and Director of the International Gaming Research Unit. He is internationally known for his work into gambling and gaming addictions and has won many awards including the American 1994 John Rosecrance Research Prize for “outstanding scholarly contributions to the field of gambling research”, the 1998 European CELEJ Prize for best paper on gambling, the 2003 Canadian International Excellence Award for “outstanding contributions to the prevention of problem gambling and the practice of responsible gambling” and a North American 2006 Lifetime Achievement Award For Contributions To The Field Of Youth Gambling “in recognition of his dedication, leadership, and pioneering contributions to the field of youth gambling”. His most recent award is the 2013 Lifetime Research Award from the US National Council on Problem Gambling. He has published over 600 research papers, four books, over 130 book chapters, and over 1000 other articles. He has served on numerous national and international committees (e.g. BPS Council, BPS Social Psychology Section, Society for the Study of Gambling, Gamblers Anonymous General Services Board, National Council on Gambling etc.) and is a former National Chair of Gamcare. He also does a lot of freelance journalism and has appeared on over 2000 radio and television programmes since 1988. In 2004 he was awarded the Joseph Lister Prize for Social Sciences by the British Association for the Advancement of Science for being one of the UK’s “outstanding scientific communicators”. His awards also include the 2006 Excellence in the Teaching of Psychology Award by the British Psychological Society and the British Psychological Society Fellowship Award for “exceptional contributions to psychology”.

Posted on July 11, 2016, in Crime, I.T., Obsession, Psychology, Religion, Sociology, Technology, Work and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 13 Comments.

  1. Thanks Mark

    I accept the diagnosis of “obsession” with my research on the history of the conception of macro evolution by natural selection. I’m glad to learn, however, that Mark judges my conclusions to be rational on this topic. – “Phew”.

    A few people may have heard of Wallace and the challenges to Darwin’s throne that is story brings. However, few have heard of Matthew, despite the world’s top Darwinists admitting he was first in published print by decades with the full complex theory. In that regard, one – among many of the new and original discoveries I made with Google (of all things) is that the editor of Wallace’s’ (1855) famous Sarawak paper on organic evolution [which Darwin read pre-1858] had actually read and cited Matthew’s (1831) book many times in 1842. Moreover John Loudon reviewed Matthew’s (1831) book in 1832 and remarked:

    “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,
    1832: 702-703).”

    I originally discovered that Loudon then went onto edit two of Blyth’s most influential papers on organic evolution. And Darwin (1861 onward) admitted Blyth was his most prolific informant on the topic.

    Hence the New Data of who we newly know really did read Matthew’s orignal ideas pre-1858 – interpreted through the notion of “knowledge contamination” – provides dis-confirming evidence for the current paradigm, of tri-independent discovery of the complete hypotheses of macro-evolution by natural selection, which is based on the newly punctured myths that are the premise that ‘no one known to Darwin or Wallace or their influencers, or their influencer’s influencers, could have read Matthew’s (1831) orignal ideas before Darwin and Wallace (1858 {published} and Darwin (1842 and 1844 {unpublished private essays} and 1859 {published})

    However, University employed Darwinists are currently digging in their badger claws of paradigm change resistance to engage in point blank fact denial behaviour’ regarding the “New Data”.

    You can even read some of their obscene comments on the Best Thinking website: Here: “The De Facto “MacDarwin Industry” and it’s Member’s Pseudo-Scholarly Corporate Denial of the Very Existence of Uncomfortable New Facts”:

    Clearly, this is an interesting area for psychologists interested in bias and prejudice.

  2. Thanks Dr. Griffiths from another Matthew Crusader

    I think you need to add “Pathologically Analytical Creation”… (PAC)… to your analysis listing as well as “Seditious Selective Memory”… (SSM)… “Defunking Data Dating”…(DDD)… for the sake of denial…and “Disinformation Obsession Disorder”…(DOD) to wiggle himself into gaining credit for work that wasn’t his own. These would be the terms I would most certainly use… because these were all part of a process that Darwin most certainly utilized with Patrick Matthew’s 1831 work. Why else would Darwin wait 13 years (1844) before testing the waters by writing a paper to replicate Matthew’s work on Apples with the rarely seen methodology of not only noting their similarities but their dissimilarities as well…and then another 14 years (1858) to regurgitate the exact same replications of Matthew’s work on Apples in the opening chapter of “Origin of the Species”… then another 2 years more (1860 ) when Patrick Matthew calls him out on the carpet making what I’m sure was a bitter pilled complete capitulation that he had indeed been fully preempted by PM then turn right around denying that the replicated work existed in the main text of On Naval Timber and Arboriculture in the first place… then the final Coup de tat… the pious ” Who would think to find such theories in the appendages of a book on Naval Timber.” The audacity to have even stooped so low as to pan peddle such triviality is remarkably asinine… but far worse… is the realization that so many foolish took him at his word as if he were the God of Authoritarianism. The reign of 158 years of perpetuated mythological redundancy now shrouds supposedly the greatest point in the history of science in a cloak of false pretense.

    Dr Griffiths. I’m Major Howard L Minnick. Perhaps Dr. Sutton has mentioned me to you. He just this past Saturday informed me that you would be writing to this effect…so I’m grateful to share some thoughts with you as well. Since Mike’s first publication of “Nullius in Verba” a lot of new information has been brought to light. Much of it has been critical information because it dispels much of Darwin’s pathetic attempt to trivialize and place into obscurity Patrick Matthew and his book “On Naval Timber and Arboriculture.” It also further dispels the trivialization and false conceptual fabrication of Darwin’s misleading statement that no naturalist had read or cited Patrick Matthew pre “Origin of the Species.”

    I happen to be the 3rd Great Grandson of Patrick Matthew. I previously worked with Dr. Jim Dempster as well as with two other Matthew relatives in Errol Jones of New Zealand, and Wulf Gerdts of Germany. They preceded me and without them Dr. Dempster would not have been able to have laid the foundation for all that he exposed and certainly for that that is now coming to being exposed by Dr. Sutton.. Dr. Sutton reaped the benefit of all their previous work but himself has carried the work far beyond what any might assume could ever again be enlightened when Jim Dempster passed away.

    Despite being a Botanist and having been a Federally Employed Range Conservationist working for more than a decade with livestock producers on private and Federal Range Lands, I also am a certified Army Combat and Civil Engineer having retired after more than two decades doing mostly Conservation engineering and Humanitarian Construction work in 3rd world countries. I kept getting called back to active duty service so logically came to the conclusion that I was most needed in the Military so put aside my interests in Plants and
    Animals as well as a civilian Civil Service career and finished out a Military career. Now that I have returned to the things I truly love I can do more by seeing that Patrick Matthew receives rightful recognition for his and not Darwin’s plagiarized works.

    My research deals with and is centered around the very premise of Darwin’s Piousness. His attempts even in his day to trivialize Naval Timber were astoundingly naïve…unless however it can be shown that Darwin had reason to seemingly appear to be naïve or more likely he had need to be more misdirectional…thus appearing to be naïve on the subject of Naval Timber. May I point out that the recording of his 5 year voyage aboard the Cherokee Class Brig, HMS Beagle has very tenaciously been written in a very significant manner of never even mentioning it at all thus downplaying it’s significance. Naval Timber was such an important subject and had been for several hundred years going back to the 1500’s. No mentioning was ever undertaken in the recording of the voyage the significant time that was spent in carrying out an equally higher mandate of the Admiralty…time that actually created the opportunity for Darwin to gallivant around and do some of his work…his shooting and collecting. One that was as high a priority or even higher than that of the surveying of the South American Coastline, the Falklands or the Galapagos themselves. That higher mandate from the Admiralty was for every ship in the Royal Navy during the course of their voyages upon the High Seas “to seek out…find…and secure by any means possible” superior stands of native timber that they might encounter…timber that would be deemed suitable for the construction and maintenance of faster and more superior naval vessels. One cannot continue the pursuit of Priority for Patrick Matthew unless one understands fully why and how Patrick Matthew came to select Naval Timber as his subject to write on. To do that it became necessary to tie Patrick Matthew directly to his ancestral lines…in particular the Duncan Lairds of Lundie and especially the 3 Alexander Duncan’s that simultaneously became the successive Provosts of the City of Dundee….Alexander Duncan’s 1st, 2nd, and 3rd

    It has always been noted in Patrick Matthew’s family history that his Mother Agnes Duncan was somehow related to Admiral Adam Duncan of Camperdown. With findings in the 2004 Doctoral Thesis of Dr. Mary Young of the University of Dundee it has recently been confirmed that Patrick Matthew’s linage goes directly through George Duncan the brother of Alexander Duncan the 3rd…the father of Admiral Duncan. Dr. Young’s thesis also establishes that Gourdiehill the estate that Patrick Matthew would inherit directly from the estate of Admiral Duncan was where for over twenty years he developed not only orchards that numbered over 10,000 apple and pear trees but it would be his laboratory and the place where he would develop his theory of evolution and his dual analogies for both Artificial Selection and Natural Selection.

    A uniquely surprising bonus came with the making of the connection to Admiral Adam Duncan of Camperdown. Alexander Duncan the 1st…Admiral Duncan’s Great Grandfather married a woman by the name of Anna Drummond. Her brother Adam Duncan the 9th of Lennoch and 2nd of Megginch was the Great Grandfather of another Admiral of the Royal Navy… Admiral Adam Drummond of Megginch. The estate of Gourdiehill… Patrick Matthew’s home from 1807 until his death in 1874 and Megginch Castle the home of Admiral Adam Drummond from his birth until his death in 1849 were once linked by a 1/2 mile long lane shaded with trees that were planted by Admiral Drummond, his son Captain John Drummond of the East India Marine Service and Patrick Matthew no less. Two of Patrick Matthew’s famous 1853 Giant Sequoia Redwoods became part of that shaded lane and one is still living today making it 163 years old. So Patrick Matthew of Gourdiehill had windows of influence from not just one Admiral in his family but two. He was almost 15 when his relative Admiral Duncan passed away in 1804… and was 59 when his relative… next door neighbor…and friend Admiral Adam Drummond passed away in 1849.

    While I am at this juncture Dr. Griffiths, may I implore you to add the title of Forester to Patrick Matthew’s resume…for he most certainly was that as well…and to which end it’s credit places homage to his work addressing the significance of Naval Timber. Captain Fitzroy or the Beagle’s own Ship’s Naturalist may or may not have had a copy of “On Naval Timber and Arboriculture” as part of their personal libraries of which… Fitzroy’s last minute replacement for a personal intellectual companion i.e. Darwin… most certainly would have had access to. But unmistakably Capt. Fitzroy most certainly had the mandate from the Admiralty to spend equal time if not more in locating Superior stands of timber for Naval purposes. You would think that Darwin would have at least expressed some gratitude that those treks would have afforded him time wise for his own pursuits. In conclusion three of the most noted Admirals who helped to establish and maintain the mandate on Naval Timber were Admiral Drummond… Admiral and Lord Heratio Nelson… and of course most significant of all Admiral Adam Duncan… Admiral Nelson’s mentor. Drummond being yonger and a relative…most assuredly was influenced by Duncan as well. Nelson in 2009 on the anniversary of his victory and death at Trafalgar was commemorated by the Woodland Trust for his advocacy in the proper management of Timber resources. Patrick Matthew, Admiral Duncan and Admiral Drummond are just as deserving of recognition as was Nelson….even more so.

    Howard L. Minnick
    Major, Corps of Engineers
    United States Army (Ret.)
    Botnist, Range Conservationist
    & 3rd Great Grandson of Patrick Matthew

  3. This is a fascinating story worthy of a television documentary or drama. It is not, as many Darwinists appear to suggest, a case of dragging Darwin down but one of natural justice for Matthew. Any fair minded person looking at the facts would find it difficult to not to conclude that Matthew had got a raw deal. Any academic that has worked with senior colleagues that I call ‘glory takers’, the ones that claim the first name credit on publications (in some cases excluding junior researchers) for the research and input of others will appreciate this sense of injustice. In this case the line of influence was more established, no matter what the critics may say to obfuscate, play-down, or deny the connection.

    I noted that the article mentions the seven had read Matthew before 1858. I am not sure but I understood this figure to be far higher, with something like 25 citing the Matthews book. Seven is actually the number of naturalists that had read it before 1858, including four that moved in the same circles or were well known to Darwin/Wallace. Also, I believe that three of the seven naturalists played major roles at the epicentre of their pre-1858 work on macroevolution by natural selection.

    Now the truth is out of the bag it is only a matter of time before enough of it seeps into the public domain to make Matthew denial look as absurd as any other attempt to protect a precious but untenable position.

    • Thanks Andy

      Yes that’s correct. My original research reveals that we now know that at least 25 people cited Matthew’s (1831) book before Darwin’s and Wallace’s (1858) first published replications of his original ideas without citation. And yes – seven is the number of those who can most definitely be described as “naturalists”.

      I recommend my latest peer reviewed science journal article for anyone wishing to understand the significance of what has been newly discovered: “On Knowledge Contamination: New Data Challenges Claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Independent Conceptions of Matthew’s Prior-Published Hypothesis” Here:

  4. Dr. Griffiths

    Need to make you aware that inadvertently in the second to last paragraph of my remarks I mistakenly used the last name of Duncan for Adam Drummond the 9th of Lennoch and the 2nd of Megginch who was the brother of Anna Drummond married to Alexander Duncan the 1st. If a correction can be made it would be appreciated.

    Howard L. Minnick

  5. Dr. Wilson,

    Funny how you should mention making a dramatization of the story. Numerous exchanges between Dr. Dempster and myself prior to Jim’s passing were about that very topic. It was a labor of mischief for me and a point of antagonism for sour old Jim. I loved chiding him with the names of certain actors to play the various roles. I’d have Sam Neil of “Jurassic Park” play The older Patrick Matthew…and Russell Crowe as the aged Darwin…Crowe actually did a tremendous job with Patrick O’Brian’s fictional character of Captain Aubrey in “Master and Commander ~ Far Side of the World.” Aubrey’s character is actually based on the exploits of Admiral Adam Duncan and Sir Thomas Cochrane.

    Too bad Jim isn’t here to scowl at some of my additional casting choices. I’d today have Hugh Bonneville of Downton Abbey portraying Admiral Duncan…Michael Cain as the dubious John Lindley the editor of the Gardener’s Chronicle who for 13 years got away with glory stealing. It was he who perpetuated that he and William Lobb were the first in priority…in the race to get California Redwoods to Great Britain thereby robbing Patrick Matthew and his son John D. Matthew over the priority of naming of the trees in honor of the Duke of Wellington and the first introduction of Giant Redwoods to Europe respectively. A later retraction by the editorial staff of the Gardener’s Chronicle a year after Lindley’s death reversed both of those priorities in favor of the Matthew’s. It’s quite evident that the cast of scoundrels’ in the Patrick Matthew story would far outweigh the good guy’s.

    Had he not passed away recently I would nominate Alan Rickman…Professor Snape of Harry Potter renown …as the mentally anguished and tortured Captain Robert Fitzroy who would years later after his command of HMS Beagle become a troubled Colonial Governor of New Zealand. Johnny Depp would fit nicely as Syms Covington… a regular seaman aboard the Beagle who suddenly found himself assigned as Darwin’s shooter, assistant, taxidermist and unfortunately… sometimes whipping boy if things went wrong. Covington played a significant role in the story of the finches of the Galapagos…basically saving Darwin’s bacon by default. Glory wasn’t the only thing that Darwin was willing to pilfer or steal.

    Howard L. Minnick

  6. The original and newly discovered evidence of Lindley’s science swindling of Matthew is here:

  7. Jim Dempster was a leading human transplant surgeon and scientist. His books demonstrate exactly how much of Matthew’s work was replicated by Darwin and Wallace. His “Wavertree letters” – reproduced in a series of blog posts on the Patrick Matthew Blog – have been made available by his family. They reveal how the Darwin Deification Industry suppressed his work:

  8. Anyone interested in discovering more about how we are discovering more about the extent of the tangled web of deceit, lies, fact denial, propaganda, academic abuse and downright science fraud of the de facto Darwin Deification Cult might be interested in an experiment I conducted.

    The xperiment confirmed the hypothesis that Wikipedia agenda editors would delete uncomfortable, yet 100% independently verifiable facts about what is in print in the historic publication record. The reason these facts are being deleted is because they disconfirm the Darwinist myth that Matthew’s bombshell original ideas were not understood before Darwin replicated them.

    Check out the story here:

  9. Someone should have a word with the Royal Society of Biology:

  1. Pingback: Selective memories: Charles Darwin, obsession, and Internet dating | Bad Data, Rubbish Research and Quackery Uncovered

  2. Pingback: Mark Griffiths, A Leading Psychologist, Deems "Matthew Denial" an Untenable Position - Think Research Expose | Think Research Expose

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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: