Interview With Author of ‘Science Fraud: Darwin’s Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew’s Theory’

Charles Darwin was a fraud. Darwinism seems almost entrenched in generational indoctrination as much as religion is in many. This is why the scholar who dared step out of line, a doctor in criminology, who surely knows how to investigate things intrigued me.

Dr Mike Sutton dared to investigate the so-called ‘God of evolution’ and what he found in his forensic research was that Charles Darwin plagiarised the concept and works of Patrick Matthew and peddled the theory of evolution as his own finding. Because Darwin is so deeply fossilised in the historical and scientific books, it is thus nigh on impossible that the ‘establishment’ will ever admit the truth.

In life, it is good to be positive, though, and it can only be hoped that one day Patrick Matthew will be justly honoured for his works on evolution. If there is one thing you do, you must read ‘Science Fraud: Darwin’s Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew’s Theory‘ by Dr Mike Sutton and make up your own mind about the whole tawdry affair.

Charles Darwin VS Patrick Matthew

The Ed:

What inspired you to write a book on the topic of Darwin’s plagiarism of Patrick Matthew’s theory?

Dr Mike Sutton: After I found it was a supermyth that Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace (1858/59) each originated the theory of evolution by natural selection because years earlier Patrick Matthew (1831) had written a book containing the full theory. I then found Darwin lied when he claimed no one read Matthew’s theory in his book (because he had been told the opposite was true). Darwin also lied when he claimed the theory was entirely buried in the Appendix of Matthew’s book – again because he had been prior shown the opposite was true. Many other empirical facts prove beyond all reasonable doubt that both Darwin and Wallace plagiarised Matthew’s theory and lied to cover it up. We deserve accuracy in our science and history. In fact, we need it in this post-truth age.

Can you briefly explain the central thesis or main argument of your book for our readers?

Firstly, Matthew did get the full theory first and top biologists Sir Gavin de beer, Ernst Mayr and Richard Dawkins and others have written Darwin, Wallace and Matthew, and other leading experts in the field all agreed the theory Darwin and Wallace claimed as their own is, in all important regards, the same as Matthew’s complete prior origination. See: Matthew (1860a; 1860b) Darwin (1860, 1861), Wallace (1879 1879a), de Beer (1962), Mayr (1982), Hamilton (2001), Dawkins (2010), and Rampino (2011). Secondly, a wealth of new and earlier discovered empirical evidence shows Darwin and Wallace stole Matthew’s theory. For over a century, Darwin’s superfans have hidden the facts and attacked anyone writing about them. This is anti-science and anti-history behaviour. My jointly authored science book chapter describes this as The Patrick Matthew Effect in science.

What specific evidence do you present in your book to support the claim that Charles Darwin plagiarised Patrick Matthew’s ideas on natural selection?

Matthew uniquely coined the term for his theory “natural process of selection” Darwin uniquely four-word shuffled this to “process of natural selection”. Darwin also stole Matthew’s unique explanatory analogy of the differences and similarities between artificial and natural selection. It is proven Darwin held in his hands 5 publications citing Matthew’s book because his “books read” notebook proves it. Darwin and Wallace copied many other examples used by Matthew to explain his theory, and also copied his prose. Darwin is proven to have lied about who read Matthew’s book. In fact, Darwin’s and Wallace’s greatest influencers and influencer’s influencers are newly proven to have read it and cited it in the literature before Darwin or Wallace put pen to paper on the topic. This is major evidence of knowledge contamination.

How does your research shed new light on the historical development of the theory of evolution?

The only new light it shines on it is we now know it is not true that no one read Matthew’s theory before Darwin and Wallace replicated it. We now newly know that their influencers and influencer’s influencers read it. And we know that because they cited it in the literature years before Darwin or Wallace penned a word on the topic. We also have lots of evidence of what prose and ideas and examples Darwin and Wallace replicated from Matthew’s book. We also have definitive proof Charles Darwin lied when he claimed no one read Matthew’s theory. And that he lied when he wrote it was all contained only in the Appendix of Matthew’s book. We also now know who greatly influenced Matthew (see chapter for book on The Patrick Matthew Effect).

What kind of historical documentation or sources did you rely on to make your case?

All published books and journal articles newly unearthed in the newly scanned historic publication record of millions of long forgotten books. Also, Darwin’s letters and notebooks.

The idea of multiple scientists independently arriving at similar conclusions is not uncommon in the history of science. How do you address this aspect in your book?

In cases where this is accepted, we require evidence that there is an absence of evidence that knowledge contamination from one person to another could have taken place. In the case of Darwin, Wallace and Matthew we now newly know that is not the case. There were many examples now unearthed of where knowledge contamination could have taken place and this new evidence now runs contrary to the old Supermyth that none could have happened because no single person read Matthew’s theory before 1860.

How has the scientific community responded to your claims and evidence, and what criticisms have you encountered?

The biological Journal of the Linnean society (the society that allowed Darwin’s and Wallace’s 1858 papers to be read out claiming the theory as their own independent originations) has published a number of articles that now make a new claim (running contrary to what Darwin said, and top Darwinists have written) that published articles claiming Matthew’s theory is different to Darwin’s and so Darwin could not have been influenced by Matthew. One member of the scientific community (Dr Mike Weale) tried to have me sacked from Nottingham Trent University by making childish silly claims about me – the university had me formally investigated (as risk petrified managerialist establishment always do in such circumstance) and threw out the claims as being completely disingenuous. Several fake book reviews have been written in some minor magazines for Darwin Worshippers. All fail to mention the new empirical facts on who we now know did read Matthew’s book pre-1858. Wikipedia has done the same – published absolute fact avoiding made-up claptrap on this topic, and they refuse to allow the facts to be published. I strongly suspect some kind of Darwinian funding is behind this brute censorship and misinformation. Other than this, the scientific community is in a state of denial, leading to wilful or ignorant blindsight to the empirical data. The Journal for the History of Biology has an editorial policy (they told me) refusing to allow any historical evidenced articles on Darwin’s plagiarism. I suppose it is heresy to the Darwin worshipping faithful. Many biologists have a lot to lose in light of the new facts.

Are there any specific examples from Darwin’s writings or correspondence that you find particularly compelling in supporting your argument?

Yes, many are in my book. We know he wrote to scientists with the lie (because he had been prior told otherwise by Matthew) that no single person had read the theory in Matthew’s book before 1860. Despite admitting in print in The Gardener’s Chronicle and post 1860 editions of the Origin of Species that that Matthew did get there before him with the full theory, he continued to refer to it in later editions of the origin of Species as “my theory”. He wrote years earlier to Hugh Strickland (who was the lead authority on scientific priority for The British Association for Advancement of Science) asking that lesser known discoverers have their names buried in oblivion so that more famous naturalists (such as he) who did more work on the subject should be the ones whose names be associated with it. We know about his unique four-word shuffle of Matthew’s unique name for his theory. We know Charles Darwin also used Matthew’s unique explanatory analogy between the artificial and natural selection. Matthew was a noted pomologist (apple breeder) and Darwin opened his Zoonomia notebook (said to contain his Eureka moment) with the topic of Golden Pippin apples (a topic on which Matthew had written in a journal which we now newly know (from his note of books and articles read) that Darwin had read pre-1858). Matthew’s book has a lot of information on the strength of wild crab apple trees versus the weakness of artificially selected apple trees, from his diary we know that Darwin discussed crab apple trees at great length with his botanical mentors William and Joseph Hooker. John Loudon, who wrote in 1831 that Matthew had written something original on “the origin of species” a phrase that became the title of Darwin’s famous book and Loudon was best friends with William Hooker who was father of Darwin’s best friend Joseph hooker. There are many, many more examples in my book.

Can you elaborate on the significance of the quote from Emma Darwin and how it relates to your overall thesis?

It is clear from Emma’s letter that she (probably [surely?] under direction from her husband Darwin) is admitting the theory she calls it “your own” and “original child” is Matthew’s (not Darwin’s theory at all!) and it is his because he originated it. But she goes on to say that Darwin is more faithful to it than Matthew has been. Remember, Darwin thought those who did more work on a topic should be named for it (his failed campaign with the British Association for Advancement of Science brought to a halt by Strickland, – the letters between them are in my book) – and so Emma is ratifying this argument in a way. Of course, as Matthew explained to Darwin, he nor anyone else could promote his work because it was in a way criminally and socially heretical and seditious. Matthew was also a Scottish regional leader of the Chartists – and would have been seen as a great threat to the establishment (as I am seen today?). It was not until Robert Chambers “put evolution in the air” in the mid 19th century with his anonymously authored best-selling science book “The Vestiges of Creation” that it became safe to discuss the topic. And we newly know from my research that Chambers cited Matthew’s 1831 book before writing the vestiges. And both Darwin and Wallace read The Vestiges avidly. So, there is both a route for knowledge contamination from Matthew to Wallace and Darwin in that fact and also the story that Matthew did not abandon his “child” but was forced by an intolerant society to give it up for future adoption (as happened). And in his book Matthew even wrote that it was for other naturalists to take his theory forward by experiment and observation

What do you hope readers will take away from your book, and how might it impact our understanding of the history of science and the contributions of Charles Darwin and Patrick Matthew?

I hope the book will :

(a) Educate people in the true history of the discovery of evolution by natural selection.

(b) Allow Scotland the right to correctly honour Patrick Matthew after all these years.

(c) Show people that BigData analysis has disrupted the establishment Darwin and Wallace miracle dual virgin brained conception supermyth with newly unearthed disconfirming empirical data facts.

(d) … and that this combined with the Springer Science text book chapter “The Patrick Matthew Effect in Science” due out in November of this year will teach everyone the need to properly cite their own influencers. Had Matthew cited his influencers, it would have been impossible for Darwin and Wallace to claim they independently came up with the exact same theory. Indeed, with the exact same four words to name it and the exact same crucial explanatory analogy between artificial and natural selection.

(e) Understand how the establishment facilitates criminals and other kinds of fraudsters by protecting loved icons such as Rolf Harris, Jimmy Saville and Charles Darwin etc, etc.

Mike Sutton has a first degree in law and a PhD in criminology from the University of Central Lancashire. He was senior criminologist at the British Home Office; Reader in Criminology at Nottingham Trent University; founder of the “Centre for Reduction of Bias, Prejudice and Hate Crime”; and is Chief Editor of the Internet Journal of Criminology.

BUY THE BOOK NOW

Science Fraud: Darwin’s Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew’s Theory Published by Curtis Press.