Was Darwin A Liar And So What If He Was?

Teesside Skeptics in the Pub had a talk from Dr Mike Sutton last night (6th Dec 2018). He presented the gist of his book “Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s Greatest Secret.” as a simple timeline of events and communications in the development, publication and promotion of “Darwin’s” theory of evolution by natural selection.

Sutton is pretty much rejected by the science establishment because he treats the venerable Darwin as a target of accusations. We’re a sceptical bunch, so he came to the right place. It was a lively discussion.

[Post Note: This is a raw post with further claims and rebuttals in or linked in the comments below. Mostly irrelevant to the main point IMHO. Cut to the chase and go to this follow-up post on “Darwin’s Untruths” and only come back here if you really want to follow-up detail.]

The Amazon blurb is a good (combative) summary of Sutton’s position. Briefly, it is already well known and acknowledged by those involved in the history of evolutionary science that Patrick Matthew had earlier published a “similar” version of the Theory of Natural Selection for which Darwin is famous. Sutton goes as far as claiming – and citing much objective evidence – that Darwin lied in claiming that he couldn’t have been influenced by Matthew’s prior work.

Rather than a further report on the presentation itself – slides will be made available – the following summarises the key discussion points, and my own conclusions.

There is no doubt Darwin could have been influenced by Matthew (as Matthew was by others). No doubt some of the people in Darwin’s “bubble” had read some of what Matthew had previously published. Whether Darwin or any of these had spotted the significance and relevance of Matthew’s work – and phrasing – to Darwin’s origin of species is moot. As is whether the “full theory” of the processes of natural selection was complete before Darwin put his efforts into developing (and revising) his own full theory already existed in Matthew’s work – as some have claimed – but that’s a level more detailed than we could go into in one talk.

One things is clear is that Darwin himself acknowledged in the 3rd edition of the Origin of Species, as have many evolutionary biologists since, that Matthew had published the essence of – even most of and more – Darwin’s theory earlier. Another thing that is clear is that the “origin” of an idea, the intuition of its significance is never one person one time. It takes time and effort to get any idea promulgated and recognised – tell me about it! – by multiple publications and dialogues, fleshed-out and revised. First to publish carries some institutional weight, but doesn’t trump the fact that science is more than having and publishing an idea – that’s more like patenting for commercial gain, a proprietorial claim.

To me now, as a pan / neo-Darwinist more excited by 21st century developments in Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES), Darwin is simply the most influential name attached to the basic theory, a reward for the effort put into its development and promotion. Origination isn’t really the point as noted above. Science is complicated and dynamic, and history is messy and unscientific. “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea“, to quote (my hero) Dennett, alliterates nicely, but doesn’t idolise Darwin as the sole originator, simply as the most influential name attached to the idea.

Now I’m the first to acknowledge science is hidebound by numerous myths that seriously cramp progress and lead scientists into bad behaviour. That’s mostly what this blog is about in fact, keeping science and humanism honest. Galileo is often positively mythologised in much the way Darwin is. Science and atheism negatively mythologise the irrational nature of religious belief, and so on.

Whether or not Darwin was influenced by Matthew, the real claim is that he and his bubble lied about the significance of his work and about whether he and they could have been influenced.

As ever such debates come back to what we mean by truth and lies, and in fact that is the main myth of scientism – that all truth is about objective facts. And we can further “define” what we mean by lies as knowingly telling untruth with intent to deceive (a la Frankfurter). But this is just first-base, with further loops and Hofstadterian “strange loops” of intent in deception – a la white-lies, less-than-whole-truths and creative claims. As Dennett says – hold your definitions. By all means declare them to clarify discussion, but definitions are your conclusions, not constraints on the dialogue. Definitions – like every other “species” – evolve by natural selection.

Even on that basic Frankfurter definition of lying, I’d still say on the evidence presented, Darwin could have lied, but there was only circumstantial evidence that he might have, with only a couple of exceptions. It is important to note that those examples are in correspondence about the work, after the event, not part of the theory. Ongoing context not content.

For example: “No single person” had / could have actually read Matthew’s work. “No natural scientists” had “apparently” been aware of Matthew’s work. Clearly these are deliberate assertions which are not true in any literal objective sense, and much easier to show with 21st century “big data” technology not available to Darwin at the time. But these are rhetorical statements, they are not part of the scientifically objective content, required to meet basic logical standards of truth and falsehood. That mega-myth I call scientism, that ALL truths must meet the logical objectivity of science itself. Real life, and large parts of social-science and psychology, are not reducible to repeatable scientific paradigms.

In some sense Darwin may have lied, but what do we gain by simply calling him a liar? We certainly get the polarisation response – adoption by conspiracy theorists and enemies, and rejection as a pariah from the establishment. Is that what we want? More noise and heat than light and knowledge.

Obviously we “care” about truth, but standards of truth are contextual. Beyond science we have rhetoric, politics and religion. Politics definitely cares who it “offends” with raw whole truths – pragmatic tactics and strategies prevail. It’s always necessary to predict potential reactions that may get in the way of successfully getting your message out there. Let’s face it, there was plenty of choice-politic in how Darwin and his bubble dealt with the religious climate facing their theory. Maybe he hadn’t been conscious that he had been influenced by Matthew and was embarrassed when he realised he might have been? Maybe he had to lie? Maybe his establishment bubble made him lie? It was necessary to manage the messaging in order to get evolution by natural selection established. None of this “lying” compromised the content of the theory. Even Sutton himself took care not to include truths about Matthew’s position as a Chartist in his own book, in order to remove one distracting line of (spurious) objection to the content of his work. That’s life. No doubt some of Matthew’s difficulty getting more of his own work published and having his own claims rejected, failing to gain any establishment allies at the time, also hinged on him being seen as a dangerous nut-job thanks to his overt politico-religious position.

Anyway, after all the ifs and buts, what would we like to achieve, and what would explicitly calling Darwin a liar add to that?

  1. We care about truth, but should we promote a narrow “autistic” conception of absolute objective truth as the only game in town? No.
  2. Darwin is already a pretty successful branding for the basic idea built on so successfully by so many scientists and philosophers in so many (non-biological) fields since. Does it help to confuse that message with unnecessary detail truth and/or denigration of the name most associated with it? No.
  3. Should we give Matthew more credit in public consciousness? Sure, but no doubt other important contributors to the science and to the sci-comms.
  4. Should we educate  the public (and the scientific establishment!) in lessons of how scientific progress is messier and less scientific than science itself? How science is itself trapped in myths that are holding it back? You bet. Philosophy of Science and the History of Philosophy and Science are subjects distinct from science itself. Rhetoric is not a dirty word.

Not sure calling Darwin a liar adds to that.

[Since those 4 points above have not been addressed yet, I have in fact posted  follow-up with additional considerations.]

21 thoughts on “Was Darwin A Liar And So What If He Was?”

  1. Thanks for an interesting and a wonderful tough debate tonight and here in your blog.

    I expect some will take exception to anyone referring to Harry Frankfurt’s (he of the famous Princeton University press book “On Bullshit”) definition of a lie being an intention to deceive with a deliberate falsehood as autistic – as opposed to a philosophical definition of what a lie and lying is as opposed to what “bullshitting” is but I’m sure you do not mean to offend anyone. I’m not sure, but I don’t think I’m autistic or a binary thinker in adopting Frankfurt’s definition to reason that Darwin surely lied (by writing many times the exact opposite to what he had been shown was true) as I demonstrate in a peer reviewed article on the topic along with fully referenced details on the newly discovered data that show the routes for potential pre-1858 knowledge contamination of Matthew’s original ideas and explanatory examples to Darwin’s and Wallace’s brains and work via their known friends, editors, influencers and influencer’s influencers:

    http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/index.php/pl/czasopismo/46-fag-2015/921-fag-2015-art-05

    The other paper we discussed is the one I co-authored with Professor Griffiths, it shows more BigData mythbusts and explains that Google’s autonomous AI called “Rank Brain” has reduced the functionality of Google to make and further such discoveries in the historic publication record.

    https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/7/4/66

    Both articles are peer reviewed by experts in the field and are open access.

    Best wishes

    Mike

  2. Thanks Mike,

    To “articles are peer reviewed” I say “nullius in verba” 😉

    As predicted, the whole topic (even in your response) boils down to understanding truth and lies.

    Lying-101 is kindergarten stuff – as adults we really need to be thinking about best actions for the future – a communications strategy. So as I read your additional references, you need to respond to points 1 to 4.

    Two observations:

    A. Frankfurt – like Wittgenstein (and Schrodinger’s cat and Trolleyology) – was largely tongue in cheek – to make people think, not to “define” anything real (also discussed above – getting from 101 to adulthood). Much longer “post-post-modern” story.

    B. Your own disingenuous point is the hidden establishment vs chartism “politics” for institutional, rhetorical “lying” …. more later.

    1 to 4 ?

    [PS I should add – “autistic” was in scare quotes – I’m not accusing you. It’s why I refrained from using it and only tested your view of the word in our individual conversation at the end. The “autism” is science’s problem, not yours. You understand the use-mention distinction?]

    Regards
    Ian

  3. If you doubt the articles were peer reviewed in these peer reviewed journals then ask the editors. What reason do you have to doubt it? These are expert peer reviewed journals. You cannot publish in them without the papers being submitted for external review to experts in the area. I have seen and had to respond at length to the reviewers comments. The second paper had 4 expert peer reviewers. If I am lying then that is a serious academic irregularity. If the journal is not submitting the papers for peer review then that is very serious indeed. Have you been influenced in your doubt they have been peer reviewed in that regard no evidence whatsoever, other than by utter demented tripe written in Wikipedia by demented Darwin worshipping cyberstalkers – the world’s worst encyclopedia ? 😉

  4. Dear Psybertron, Terry and other Teesside Skeptics,

    sorry not to have attended last night. Would have been a pleasure pulling the presented straw men apart. I can provide endless demonstrative evidence for the errors in this work, and would simply point you to the dedicated blog site. Unfortunately, the only form of defence received in support of the unsubstantiated claims, regards Darwin’s and Wallace’ and colleagues’ lying, deceit and plagiarism, has been a Cease & Desist letter from the Nottingham Trent University lawyers, with a demand to remain silent for a decade, on this and their apparent cover up of multiple allegations of misconduct by your guest speaker. Perhaps it taints their clean record and capacity to win awards.

    Regardless, because whatever we call truth, is something worth fighting for, and the talk given to your group was based on many falsehoods (happy to provide endless evidence — just ask jfderry@gmail.com), therefore, to clarify this important misconception regarding peer review first:

    it is imperative that editors allocate reviewers according to their expertise. This is not the case in every single one of the associated publications (see below). Why? An odd mixture of crazy.

    The stated expectation for all editors and publishers of academic literature, is to uphold the quality of that literature with respect to quality of content, and standards of research integrity.

    • authors will do their best to maintain standards,
    • editors will appoint qualified reviewers,
    • reviewers will honestly declare their inability in subjects outside their specialism.
    • authors will be amenable to challenges and will take responsibility for the accuracy of their work,
    • editors will reconsider papers and take appropriate action as mediators and arbitrators when correction is required,
    • employer universities and professional bodies will seek to maintain research integrity, and fully investigate possible misconduct.

    Organisations such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE https://publicationethics.org/) provide guidelines to journals, however it is obviously in each discipline’s interest to expect the highest standards of work.

    The publications in question follow, with annotations regarding peer review, about which the author has griped and been insulting, and drawn on conspiracy theory. Please request full documentation with correspondence as required jfderry@gmail.com :

    1. paper #1
    The Hi-Tech Detection of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Possible Science Fraud: Big Data Criminology Re-Writes the History of Contested Discovery.
    Papers from the British Criminology Conference 14, 49-64. 2014b http://britsoccrim.org/volume14/pbcc_2014_sutton.pdf

    A conference proceedings, supposedly peer-reviewed, but evidently not so, and edited no more than for format and legibility. Millie, the editor sent a disclaimer in response to a request to consider retraction, saying that he, the journal, Sutton, and the BSC had no liability for the content. This is ridiculous, and editor disclaiming responsibility for the content of their journal!

    2. e-book #1
    Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s Greatest Secret.
    Cary, NC. Thinker Media Inc. 2014 https://archive.li/QDdMA

    Essentially self-publishing, although under the umbrella of Bob Butler’s brand name Thinker Books. Butler wanted provocative thinkers to form a nexus of critical intellectuals. He shut down at the start of this year citing it hadn’t turned out as expected and that it had attracted to much unwelcome contestation. Yet he published this title.

    3. paper #2
    On Knowledge Contamination: New Data Challenges Claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Independent Conceptions of Matthew’s Prior-Published Hypothesis.
    Filozoficzne Aspekty Genezy — 2016 t. 12 Philosophical Aspects of Genesis s.1-39. http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/images/FAG/2015.t.12/art.05.pdf

    A group of intelligent design advocates run out of Philosophy department in a Polish university (3 independent sources of verification). They want to get ID into mainstream scientific journals by applying pluralism — the idea that knowledge can be sourced from many endeavours. However, even with a mantra of Feyerabend’s, “Anything goes”, they weren’t prepared for the inability of the author to present worthwhile ideas (the reviewer almost failed it for incomprehensibility), and then his vileness in response to one of their students who provided a review of the above e-book #1 (the author had to redraft his first response as it was too insulting to be published). Suffice to say their ulterior motive of attracting attention for their campaign backfired. My first move was to contact their scientific committee to ask why they allowed the paper entry. Most didn’t even know they were on the panel, and a colleague of mine resigned as soon as he learned it was ID linked. The author has since spun this as a response to his paper, about which evolutionary biologists and historians of science are supposed to be defeated and jealous in equal measure. The self-delusion is palpable.

    4. book/e-book #2
    Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s Greatest Secret. 2nd volume, abridged.
    CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. 2017. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nullius-Verba-Darwins-greatest-secret/dp/1541343964

    Self-published on Amazon’s platform. No review. Rewritten e-book #1 with more elements of Matthew’s Chartist interests, but no relevance to the evolutionary claims. Entire sections excised, presumably because we refuted them, but which the author has never admitted. Teesside is in possession of same evidence, including comprehensive refutations of the author’s central evidence for his claims in their entirety, compromising List 1 and List 2 published in e-book #1.

    5. paper #3
    Routine Activity Theory’s ‘Mindless’ Chemistry Meme masquerades as a theory of crime causation.
    Internet Journal of Criminology 2018 https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/b93dd4_c8e6f33885374e62ae67156703a390fe.pdf

    This is the author’s own online journal. He is the editor. One of his ex-students, now in the same department, and a long-term friend and colleague were the reviewers. They wrote obsequious nonsense making it clear they didn’t check a single claim.

    6. paper #4
    Using Date Specific Searches on Google Books to Disconfirm Prior Origination Knowledge Claims for Particular Terms, Words, and Names.
    Social Sciences 2018, 7(4), 66; (with Mark D. Griffiths) https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/7/4/66/htm

    Again, a journal where the editor didn’t appoint qualified reviewers, and the reviewers weren’t honest about their lack of expertise, etc., yet, “Social Sciences Journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). We fully adhere to its Code of Conduct and to its Best Practice Guidelines” https://www.mdpi.com/journal/socsci/instructions

    There is an obvious need to remove these sources of misinformation from the academic and public spheres. They are of insufficient standard for the former, and misleading to the latter. There has been a multitude of wrongdoings based on their existence, but let’s leave it there for now, suffice to say, it is the author’s belligerence and unprofessional disdain for academic protocol (namely being open to debate within the discipline), that perpetuates these to this day, despite being told of his mistakes in 2013, and again in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018.

  5. Sometimes our Skeptics nights aren’t long enough to cope with the breadth or depth of interesting subject areas and this was one of those occasions. It was almost closing time when we broke up the discussion. Many interesting points were made about the case put forward by Mike Sutton and he had some good responses to the questions that had been well thought out. Unusually I would like to continue some of the discussion in the Facebook Group where most members are hooked in and I would like to distribute a link to this blog plus comments if you are happy for me to do so?

  6. Hi Mike,
    Not suggesting they weren’t peer reviewed, maybe they were, maybe they weren’t.
    Just that peer review is more “somebody else’s word for it”.
    (Lots of Darwinists work has been peer reviewed, so it’s irrelevant.)

    Are you not going to address my points?
    Ian
    [Edited for emphasis.]
    (PS whilst waiting, I’ve posted a follow-up http://www.psybertron.org/archives/12948 )

  8. Pingback: Darwin’s Untruths – Psybertron Asks

  9. Thanks for your comment (and emails) JF.
    (Missed it in the spam folder for a few days.)

    A fascinating academic institutional battle either way.
    Disappointed that Mike has not continued the conversation.
    I may have to move on to other topics.
    Ian

  10. Hi Ian,

    thanks for resurrecting the comment.

    Regarding “A fascinating academic institutional battle either way.” NO, no, a million times no!

    There is nothing in Sutton’s work that even approaches academic standards. Please do not add to his self delusion that there is anything of value in his research output for the last years of his career, since starting in this subject in 2013. From the get go, he has assumed things are overly simple, from his ignorance of evolutionary science history, and an odd belief that he doesn’t need the knowledge accrued by experts in the field during entire careers. He says Darwin was berated by Murray for “natural selection”, and that Darwin said that it was a common term in the breeding literature.

    Please, do what Sutton did — it’s important to see how his mistakes are blatantly obvious, and how none of his findings are reproducible; his catchphrase “independently verifiable facts” is meaningless because several independent researcher have been unable to repeat his discoveries. Either, he is using a different Google Books to everyone else, or he is mistaken. Let’s see.

    Open up Google Books, and search for “natural selection”. See if it occurs before 1859. You may need to push the search window back a bit to not get bogged down in modern texts, eg, from 1800 to 1900. Whilst playing with the date setting, try a couple more combinations. Do the same results dated within the specified period appear each time? More likely, you’ll see some drop out and mysteriously reappear, even though they are within 10 or 20 years of the time limits. This has caught out Sutton repeatedly, missing the earlier publication that pips his claim of the oldest appearance of a term, just because he’s careless, and hasn’t fully calibrated his equipment. A scientist would know this, whether using a pipette or a parallel computer. It’s all just data, and has inherent properties that need to be taken into account.

    You should have found that indeed “natural selection” does not appear before 1859. But, Darwin claimed it did. That’s his justification for using it, when replying to Murray, his publisher.

    At this point, what does an intelligent person do? Another quality of any scientist qualified to hold that name, is modesty and doubt. These combine to create an inherent uncertainty in all science, that R.A. Fisher parameterised, and others have formalised with respect to types of error: type I, type II, sampling.

    Sutton lacks both modesty and self doubt. This confidence comes from believing himself to be highly intelligent, when in reality, the cause of that blinkered state is quite the opposite. It is stupid to think you’re going to be correct all the time. Doing so causes mistake after mistake after mistake, and that’s Sutton’s achievement.

    So what are your options? 1) Think you have made discovery that contradicts something Darwin said to his publisher in a well-known, documented incident, such that it has been overlooked by millions of professionals and amateurs interested in that history, or, 2) wonder whether you may be mistaken, and decide to review what you know about the relevant aspects of the story.

    Hint: it’s not 1

    You may look at the sources of the events, looking to see if they are consistent. They are. From where else might this anomaly have been produced? Review what you did … search “natural selection”. Repeat it. Same. Check those time limits. Nothing untoward, as in moving them doesn’t suddenly produce a cluster of previously overlooked breeder books. Okay, what was Darwin on about it being in the breeding literature. Time to engage. Look at his reading lists. Find a reference to a title that mentions breeding or farming or animal husbandry, etc. Read it. Find another. Read it. Keep going, you’re now starting to build up a better understanding of the literature that Darwin was reading. Still no “natural selection” though. Plenty of “selection”, but no “natural… Oh!

    Now look at everything that you’ve already done again, holding the idea in your head, i.e., testing the idea, that Darwin was talking about “selection”. From all his correspondence and exposition in the Origin, through to Sutton’s ignorant misreading, it should now be apparent, the term at the time was “selection”. An independent source of evidence would be useful. I usually reach for the 1828 Johnson’s Dictionary. To have a way into the vocabulary of the time is fantastic in avoiding anachronistic errors.

    Everything points to “selection”: Darwin was talking about selection in breeding, selection in nature, and selection related to reproduction: artificial, natural and sexual. Whether he misunderstood Murray’s question or not, which is unlikely given Darwin was the more familiar with breeding literature, his reply was with respect to the process with which he had made an analogy, a functional comparison between human intervention to modify domestic varieties, compared to the process in nature, filtering out the least well adapted individuals for all varieties occurring naturally.

    Fyi, Sutton is also wrong to claim Matthew was first to use that artificial-natural analogy. As just one example, Erasmus Darwin predates him by a long shot. He is also wrong to claim the filtering affect of natural selection was discovered by Matthew, as the same is written about by Lucretius c.55 BC.

    I do hope you have followed the actions of doing some of this checking of Sutton’s research. You should start to feel the bile rising, and loathing and detestation, at the loss of so much time, to refute such blinkered idiocy. That is the real crime here, refusing to be accountable, to engage in civil debate, and instead carrying out the wanton theft of people’s time, as they are forced to wipe up the mess, instead of proceeding with their lives, with their families. That is the disgusting reprehensible person Sutton is, and you would be best not writing anything that cuts him slack, before you have throughly checked it, as above. As far as the mistakes go, that just his incompetency.

    More reading from the usual place:

    naturalselectionbeforedarwin.pdf
    naturalselectionprocess.pdf
    natureofselection.pdf

  11. Hi JF,

    You clearly didn’t read my words here or the follow-up post.
    http://www.psybertron.org/archives/12948
    I’m not cutting him ANY slack. I accuse him explicitly of reprehensible POLITICAL motives. End of.

    If you have anything to say about what I’ve written, I’d be interested, but I’m not interested in more detail on your rebuttals of Sutton’s claims. The claims are already worthless IMHO.

    Regards
    Ian

  12. Hi Ian,

    I really did read every word, but there is clearly something impeding comprehension of your argument. It is very Suttonesque to assume the fault always due to another.

    The way you have phrased yourself, comes across as the opposite to what you are now saying is your meaning, which renders the point of your dialog useless at best, and worse still, in support of your antagonist.

    The same here:

    begin –>

    “Firstly I’m NOT interested in arguing whether Darwin (and his bubble) told any untruths. I’m arguing about whether that makes any sense to therefore claim “Darwin was a liar”. Telling an untruth – with intent to deceive – doesn’t necessarily make you a liar. Do not pass go.

    Got that?”

    OK, so given Darwin (and his bubble) told untruths (with intent to deceive), the question becomes one of his / their motives and the motives of anyone wanting to promote the “Darwin was a liar” message? (Sutton has not yet responded to the specific points in my original post.)

    My best guess at Darwin’s untruths is that

    • (a) he probably did not consciously use Matthew’s work as a source,
    • (b) probably didn’t believe he’d been influenced when he published, and

    *** NOTHING POINTS TO DARWIN FROM MATTHEW FOR SEVERAL IRREFUTABLE REASONS :
    *** 1) MATTHEW’S MODEL OF NATURAL SELECTION HAD BEEN KNOW FOR MILLENNIA, AT LEAST AS EARLY AS LUCRETIUS.
    *** 2) NATURAL SELECTION HAD NOT BEEN SUCCESSFULLY APPLED TO THE SPECIES QUESTION.
    *** 3) MATTHEW DID NOT SUCCESSFULLY APPLY NATURAL SELECTION TO THE SPECIES PROBLEM.
    *** 4) EVERY DETAIL IN DARWIN’S DEVELOPMENT OF HIS MODEL OF NATURAL SELECTION CAN BE TRACED TO A PARTICULAR EXPERIMENT AT DOWNE AND OBSERVATIONS MADE DURIGN THE BEAGLE. ALL THIS IS THOROUGHLY STUDIED AND AVAILABLE.

    • (c) after subsequently corresponding with Matthew and giving acknowledgment in the 3rd edition of The Origin of Species he probably thought the matter closed – so he could get on with the ongoing task of expounding and defending the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection – for which Darwin is rightly recognised.

    *** 5) BADEN POWELL THEN BUTLER CRITICISED DARWIN FOR NOT REFERENCING HIS SOURCES ALTHOUGH THEIR REAL REASON WAS COVERT.
    *** 6) BADEN POWELL ARGUED FROM A THEOLOGICAL VIEWPOINT, BUT WAS ACCEPTING OF EVOLUTION, AS THE RESULT OF CONSTANT CHANGE, AS A FUNCTION OF GOD’S WILL, AND AS DESCRIBED IN THE NATURAL THEOLOGY OF CHAMBERS’ ANONYMOUSLY PUBLISHED VESTIGES OF CREATION. INDEED, DARWIN IS INSIGHTFUL TO THE POINT OF EVENTUALLY HAVING READ BADEN POWELL’S ESSAY ON EVOLUTION, TO POINT OUT HOW SIMILAR IT IS TO VESTIGES, SUGGESTING IT WILL HAVE APPEALED TO INTELLECTUAL MINDS TO THE SAME DEGREE AS VESTIGES HAD EXCITED THE POPULOUS.
    ***7) BUTLER HAD TWICE BEEN KNOCKED BACK BY FINDING HIS OWN IDEAS ALRADY EXISTED IN PRINT; MIVART AND LAMARCK WERE WIDELY KNOWN IN THE FIELD, WHEREAS BUTLER WAS AN AMBITIOUS NOVELIST. NO-ONE ELSE HAD A PROBLEM WITH DARWIN’S LEVEL OF CITATION BECAUSE WHAT HE PRODUCED WAS THE NORM, PLUS, HE WAS CLEAR IN STATING THE ORIGIN WAS AN ABSTRACT OF A LARGER WORK. NONETHELESS, HE DID HAVE A LIST OF 30 OR SO NAMES IN PREPARATION FOR THE HISTORIC SKETCH INTRODUCED IN THE 3RD BRITISH EDITION. STOTT’S DARWIN’S GHOSTS GIVES YOU ALL THE EVIDENCE REQUIRED TO SHOW HE HAD NO INTENTION OF NOT REFERENCING IN FULL, HIS LARGER WORK.
    *** 8) BUTLER HAD ESCAPED TO THE ANTIPODES FROM A VIOLENT UPBRINGING UNDER THE KOSH OF HIS ZEALOUSLY DEVOUT FATHER, WHICH PERHAPS SUGGESTS A PSYCHOLOGY IN HIS ACCUSING DARWIN OF NOT SUFFICIENTLY ACKNOWLEDGING THE PREVIOUS WORK DESCENDING HIS OWN PATERNAL LINE, VIA ERASMUS DARWIN.
    *** 9) MOST TELLING IS THAT BUTLER WAS AS CONFUSED ON EVOLUTION AS IS SUTTON NOW. HE RANKLED THE DARWIN FAMILY AFTER CHARLES DARWIN HAD DIED, MAKING ACCUSATIONS THAT DARWIN HAD SIMPLY TAKEN LAMARCK’S THEORY FOR HIS OWN.
    *** 10) LAMARCK’S AND DARWIN’S THEORIES ARE AS SIMILAR AS MATTHEW AND DARWIN’S THEORIES, IN THAT, THEY HAVE LITTLE IN COMMON.

    • (d) over time he probably realised he may actually have been influenced by Matthew’s work, at first and/or second hand, and was embarrassed, but the bubble needed to defend the project now in progress primarily against the religious establishment at that time.

    *** 11) THERE IS NOTHING EXCEPT SUTTON’S FICTION AND GENERAL IGNORANCE ON THE HISTORY TO SUGGEST THIS. AS ABOVE, DEVELOPMENT OF DARWIN’S IDEAS ARE FULLY DOCUMENTED. IF ANYONE IS GOING TO MAKE THESE ACCUSATIONS THEN THEY MUST FIRST READ DOV OSPOVAT. IT IS UNLIKELY SUCH IDEAS WILL SURVIVE THAT RE-EDUCATION.
    *** 12) WHEN MATTHEW WROTE TO THE GARDENER’S MAGAZINE, HE INCLUDED MOST OF THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF HIS 1831 BOOK, PLUS MENTION OF A REVIEW THAT HAD APPEARED IN THE LOUDON PERIODICAL. THE LATTER IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT TOLD DARWIN THE PROPORTION OF THE BOOK DEDICATED TO EACH SECTION, AND EXPLAINS HOW HE WAS ABLE TO COMMENT ON SUCH IN HIS RESPONSE. ON READING MATTHEW’S SECTIONS, WHICH HE WOULD NOT HAVE KNOW WERE PRESENTED TO HIM OUT OF ORDER, DARWIN THOUGHT HE RECOGNISED A DESCRIPTION OF SPECIATION MODERATED BY NATURAL SELECTION, BUT COMMENTED IT WAS UNCLEAR. IF THINK HIM MISTAKEN, BUT HE WAS UNDER PRESSURE, UNWELL, ALSO NURSING HENRIETTA, PROOFING THE GERMAN EDITION, AND HOSTING THE HUXLEYS. HE HAD NOT TIME NOR ENERGY TO SPEND LONG ON THE DETAIL, AND WAS TOO POLITE TO REPLY OTHERWISE.
    *** 12B) TIME HAS ALLOWED US TO CLOSER READ THOSE SECTIONS AND COMPARE THEM WITH MATTHEW’S LATER WRITING, NOT LEAST AN 1866 LETTER IN WHICH HE STATES, “a destructive change of circumstances occurs and in consequence an unrestrained field of existence is opened, near connected families intermix and from the absence for a time of selection the vacuation power, subject to be acted on by circumstantial change, has full scope”. THIS IS HOW HE DRAWS THE BEST SUITED SPECIES INTO AREAS OF THEIR HABITAT. THIS IS THEREFORE THE ENTIRETY OF HIS ISOLATION MECHANISM. IF CONDITIONS ARE SUFFICIENTLY VARIED, DIFFERENT SPECIES MAY RESULT WITHIN A FEW GENERATIONS. MATTHEW DOES NOT EXPLAIN HOW THESE SPECIES RE-INTERMINGLE BECAUSE HE HOLDS THAT POWER OF OCCUPANCY WILL MAINTAIN THE BEST ADAPTED SPECIES IN PLACE, OUTCOMPETING ANY INTRUDERS. THIS CREATES A CUL-DE-SAC WHERE PROGRESS IS NOT POSSIBLE, AND SPECIES REMAIN IN STASIS FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS. MATTHEW’S SOLUTION IS TO INVOKE A CATASTROPHE, IN THE STYLE OF CUVIER. CUVIER AND ALL OTHERS CLAIMING LONG PERIODS OF STASIS IN THE FOSSIL RECORD, ARE MISREADING THAT HISTORY, AND NOT SEEING HOW THE SAME PATTERNS ARE GENERATED BY THE BIOGEOGRAPHY THAT DARWIN AND WALLACE INTRODUCED SO SUCCESSFULLY.
    *** 13) SUTTON THINKS EVOLUTION BY NATURAL SELECTION IS JUST THAT AS ABOVE, AN ISOLATED GROUP, EXPOSED TO VARIED CONDITIONS WITH RESPECT TO OTHERS OF THE SAME INITIAL SPECIES, WITH THE FILTERING ACTION OF NATURAL SELECTION REMOVING INDIVIDUALS LEAST WELL ADAPTED. HOWEVER, THIS OMITS ALL OF THE MOST ESSENTIAL MECHANISMS THAT DARWIN DISCOVERED, THAT MORE DESCRIBES THE NATURAL WORLD AS A FLUID, DYNAMIC FLOW OF VARIETIES, OF WHICH ONLY SNAPSHOTS OF THEIR EVOLUTION HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED FOR US TO FIND. THE ALLOPATRY OF MATTHEW IS UNREALISTIC, NOT LEAST AS SPECIES ARE HELD FAST UNTIL A CATASTROPHIC RESET OF HIS SYSTEM. THE SYMPATRY AND PARAPATRY OF DARWIN-WALLACE IS THAT WHICH WE OBSERVE IN NATURE, AS A GRADUAL, ONGOING, UNINTERRUPTED PROCESS THAT IS MOSTY UNDISTURBED BY CATASTROPHES.
    *** 14) DARWIN’S CORRESPONDENCE IS EXEMPLARY IN THE WAY HOW NOT TO SUFFER THE GIBBERISH OF FOOLS. WHEN AN INTERESTING QUESTION IS POSED FROM SOMEONE DEMONSTRATING THAT THEY HAVE ENGAGED WITH THE SUBJECT, HE THEN ENTERTAINS THEIR REQUEST. OTHERWISE, HE POLITELY DISMISSES THEM, MOSTLY.

    • (e) Matthew was possibly seen as a nuisance crank in his personal claims – to various publishers, not just Darwin’s bubble, and

    *** 15) YOU NEED TO BURST THAT BUBBLE-SPEAK. MATTHEW WAS AN EMBARRASSMENT TO HIS FAMILY, A WIDELY KNOWN OPPORTUNIST, AND WAS SERIALLY BANKRUPT. CANTANKEROUS, OPINIONATED, SELF-TAUGHT, HIS ACHIEVEMENT EXTENDED TO THE BOUNDARIES OF HIS ORCHARD, AND THAT’S AS FAR AS THEY SHOULD EVER HAVE STRAYED.

    • (f) an impression reinforced by the fact Matthew was a Chartist, part of a radical socialist campaign against the Victorian establishment.

    *** 16) SUTTON’S CASTING OF MATTHEW AS A WORKING CLASS HERO IS SUTTON PROJECTING HIS IDEAL ONTO MATTHEW. THERE IS NOTHING TO SAY HE WAS ANYTHING OTHER THAN A HYPOCRITICAL, CONFUSED, EGOIST. THEY HAVE MUCH IN COMMON. HYPOCRITICAL AT ATTACKING ENTAIL IN THE LANDED GENTRY, BUT MORE THAN HAPPY FOR HIS WIFE TO INHERIT GOURDIE HILL, AND ALL THE LAND IT BROUGHT. HE WAS CONFUSED ABOUT DARWIN’S THEORY AND LIKELY NEVER EVEN READ THE ORIGIN. HIS LETTER TO LAY CLAIM WAS SENT ONLY AFTER READING A REVIEW IN THE TIMES NEWSPAPER. HE EVEN QUOTES FROM IT, AND PROVIDES NO INDICATION OF INSIGHT FOR EVOLUTION FROM THAT DAY FORTH. HE WAS AN EGOIST TO SUPPOSE HE HAD ANSWERED THE SPECIES QUESTION WITHIN A FEW PARAGRAPHS OF A CONFUSED BOOK THAT STARTED WITH TREES, GOT DISTRACTED BY THE JULY REVOLUTION, STARTED RANTING ABOUT ENTAIL, INTO WHICH MATTHEW MIXED HIS HOMESPUN EVOLUTION IDEAS, AND THEN AUGMENTED WITH A DENSELY DIFFICULT EXPOSITION AND AN ERRATUM.

    THE WORLD WOULD BE SO MUCH BETTER IF IMMODEST PEOPLE WOULD LEARN THAT JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, THEY NEED TO STUDY SUBJECTS BEFORE PASSING COMMENT.

    J”
    <– end

  13. PLEASE NOTE THERE IS AN IMPORTANT EXPLANATORY SECTION MISSING FROM ABOVE. LOOKS LIKE THE BLOG CHOPPED BETWEEN 2 ‘BEGIN’S. HERE’S THE MISSING CHUNK…

    …

    Got that?”

    OK, so given Darwin (and his bubble) told untruths (with intent to deceive), the question becomes one of his / their motives and the motives of anyone wanting to promote the “Darwin was a liar” message? (Sutton has not yet responded to the specific points in my original post.)

    My best guess at Darwin’s untruths is that

    …

  14. Derry is not worth replying to. He just completely makes weird lies and other stuff up and then attributes it to me in his weirdo cyberstalking loony effort to defend the indefensible actual evidence he so despises. The poor chap is raving and is so completely obsessed with me – not only does he write his raving loony stuff in capital letters but lawyers from Nottingham Trent University made him delete his manic cyberstalking libel and warned him against this type of behaviour and the dire consequences he is facing for it. Poor chap. Here is the independently verifiable evidence for that: http://patrickmatthew.com/Book%20Reviews.html

  15. Guys,
    Normally I would delete all the ad hominem comments at each other (and now at me) but I’ll let the ones here stand. Nicely proves my “autistic” point aimed at pseudo-scientific discourse generally. You’re as bad as each other, you are part of the problem, a pox on both your houses, etc.

    Sutton’s claims are worthless and therefore any (would be) scientific refutations are pointless.

    Anyone quoting dictionary definitions at me in defence of their use of their truth has simply “passed go” as far as any worthwhile dialogue is concerned. (Point 1 in the original mail, but I’ve said all I need to say.)

    Anyway, season’s greetings all.
    Bye.
    Ian

  16. In an attempt to keep this on track, here are a few specifics.

    1. For the record I object strongly to being lumped in with Sutton.

    2. I’m not aware of any ad hominem aimed at anyone except a general wish for informed debate. Please tell me where I have attacked you Ian.

    3. I had requested you removed my previous 2 comments: each was strangely auto-edited by your blog, it seems not to like dotted lines and repeated sentences. I sent you the complete version. What you have left here makes no sense, and is a misrepresentation. Capitals were a reluctant recourse when alternative formatting to separate text is unavailable.

    4. As it is, your blog has excised the dictionary definitions, making your reference to them ambiguous. My need for them was because you wrote, “Telling an untruth – with intent to deceive – doesn’t necessarily make you a liar. Do not pass go.” This is a direct contradiction of the 3 major references for modern English (Oxford, Cambridge and Edinburgh). By their definition, a “liar” is someone telling a “lie”, where a “lie” is a “mistruth” stated with intent to deceive. there is no innocent “lie” as you seem to be saying.

    5. When someone says “1=2”, if you want to refute their claim, it is necessary to show that “1” and “2” are not the same. I am not used to an approach that instead responds, “but, 3”.

    6. Sutton, please reply to Ian’s questions. Then answer Dagg’s, Weale’s and mine. If you believe I make “weird lies and other stuff up and then attributes it to me in his weirdo cyberstalking loony effort to defend the indefensible actual evidence he so despises.”, then please give a single example, and we can take it from there. Meanwhile, in 3 years, you have repeated the same accusation, yet have failed to provide any examples. All you have done is insult myself and others. Feel free to tackle the question of peer review. Would you like to comment on claiming peer review for a paper in your own online journal, “reviewed” by your chums?

    7. Sutton again: why you resorted to threatening litigation instead of debating like any academic would want, is beyond comprehension. The entire principle of debate is so that common understanding can be sought, and misunderstandings corrected where necessary. Claiming a global conspiracy of Darwin adulation is odd. Resorting to threatening myself, and by implication the welfare of my family, is extraordinary. Usually, the only motivation for doing so, is to hush up an investigation when exposing the truth. Are we to assume that this is an admission of having applied for public money on false pretences, and your erstwhile employer having ignored allegations of misconduct, while claiming to have received none in their annual submission, in line with the UK Common Science and Technology Committee Concordat on Research Integrity? If not, then please provide evidence to the contrary. A continued inability to do so, strongly implies an admission of guilt.

  17. Psybertron writes: “Sutton’s claims are worthless and therefore any (would be) scientific refutations are pointless.”

    Facts are facts. Newly unearthed facts that overturn prior claims to fact are worthless are they? Why? Because you never unearthed them? I’d lump you in with the deluded obsessive harassing cyber stalking neardowell failure Derry – who is insanely jealous of me if I was as simple minded as you. Instead why not get the get the expert peer reviewed facts not the opinionated childish claptrap you spout? I expect you think the facts here – e.g more facts on Darwin and on Dawkins are just worthless claims rather than proven newly unearthed facts that overturn prior myths? https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/7/4/66 –

    A pox on your ludicrous dummy throwing Trumpesque childishness.

  20. Hi Mike, that “worthless” quote you’ve cobbled together from various words I used in the piece and in a comment (defending giving you any airtime at all – against your nemesis JFDerry) – hence a pox on both your houses (after a string of rants). Quote? I didn’t actually say that.

    Anyway – you both miss the “so what” point of my piece – that I can entertain the idea you’re right (whether you are or not) and still not need to change my perspective of “Darwinism” by any other name. (It’s a very interesting story of that pragmatic realities of scientific publication). You devalue your own arguments by the overtly political motives, but hey, as I say that doesn’t (need to) change “Darwinism”.

    I will take a look at your new “evidence” to see if it changes anything.

  21. And Mike, prompted by your recent comments, I’ve re-read my original post and stand by every word of it. Despite rhetorical “objective lies” Darwin acknowledged Mayhew contribution – and all that changes is what we might have called Darwinism. (Science has much bigger problems when it comes to rhetorical lies – my main topic.) Gimme a break.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.