Darwin denied plagiarism? Well, yes, of course
|June 5, 2014||Posted by News under Darwinism, News|
But look, it doesn’t matter. Anyway, this:
When Charles Darwin published ‘On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection’ in 1859 one Scottish fruit farmer was, understandably, rather put out.
Decades before, Patrick Matthew had written a book in which he described ‘the natural process of selection’ explaining how ‘a law universal in nature’ ensured the survival of the fittest.
Darwin, although accepting that Matthew ‘anticipated’ the theory, always denied plagiarism, maintaining that he arrived at the theory independently.Now, one academic believes that Darwin must not only have been aware of Matthew’s work, but borrowed from it heavily.
Dr Mike Sutton, a criminology expert at Nottingham Trent University, has spend years cross-referencing the passages in both books, checking citations, and studying the influential figures who influenced both men. More
He claims to have unearthed a wealth of hidden information which taken together with Darwin’s unpublished notes, prove the naturalist lied.
Once you can get something passed in a court judgment in a behemoth like the United States, it doesn’t matter any more what is true. It actually really doesn’t.
Significantly, a “related article” from the same site is “Richard Dawkins: ‘I am a secular Christian’ 24 May 2014″ Which is related why, exactly? Yup. We thought so. he heck with science. You got yer job.
Years ago, a Canadian journalist shoved material into my face about this problem. He was too old to pursue it. So he said, if you ever have the chance …
So far I do.
Start the fire.