02.25.09
Why Darwin shouldn’t be in schools
Yesterday we had a post on The Darwin Conspiracy
Copy (finally) of Davies’ The Darwin Conspiracy arrives,
and a comment here, and also an email exchange (anonymized):
In a message dated xxxx, in response to yesterday’s post sent to an email group, x@x.com writes:
IN this book, on pages 111 to 114, you can read Wallace’s public statement in which He gave full credit to Darwin
for being the FIRST to discover the Theory of Natural Selection.
The date that Wallace gave was 1838 for Darwin’s discovery.
I have also read other letters written by Alfred Russel Wallace in
which he has stated that Darwin was the original discoverer.
It was to Wallace’s credit that he never disageed with Darwin on
this issue.
Reply:
That’s an outrageous statement indeed.
Wallace never figured out how he had been ripped off.
If you cite this book, I recommend everyone read the whole book.
These deceptive quotes, with a hard to obtain book, are effective in perpetrating the lie.
Wallace yielded to Darwin because Darwin’s rigged papers made it look
like Darwin had known all along what he actually got from Wallace. It’s so outrageous it makes you sick to your stomach.
It’s time to call it off, guys. 150 years of Darwin fraud is enough.
Do we have to deceive kids on this question, or worse, teach them to lie?
And that is what is happening, because a lot of smart Darwin groupies suddenly see what happened, and yet elect to join the deception.
I have been watching this over time in some of the debates on the issue, such as they are.
Darwinists get away with this because people are too intimidated to protest.
I strongly recommend everyone read the whole book, to see how it is meaningless to cite Wallace’s passivity and good graces here.
Darwin’s was nearly a perfect crime.
Wallace was also a powerless lower class individual ‘manipulated into his place by the chance to obtain public recognition in Darwin’s shadow.
He sent, with wretchedly misplaced trust, his famous Ternate letter to Darwin, perhaps out of partial desperation, or whatever reason, although he could easily have had it published elsewhere, with the result that we would speak of Wallaceism today, instead of Darwinism.
His motives were complex, and in any case based on genuine confusion
over the way he was used.
As The Darwin Conspiracy points out, this deception has been known to scholars for a while, and should have been exposed forty years ago (consider Brackman’s A Delicate Arrangement), but still the Darwin estab gets away with this, in many cases through the sheerest of brazen lying.
This shouldn’t go on like this. Evolution should be celebrity-independent, and free of the cult of a founder. The world needs to move on, and bypass this idiotic Darwinist fanaticism that will make a cult founder out of a dishonest cheat.
In the end the reputation of science is going to crash badly.
Small wonder religious orgs are in a swelling undertow of opposition.
They smell a rat, and have smelled a rat all along.
Darwin shouldn’t be in schools. Evolution yes, but not this sickening cult of the chicanery of its interloper, who contributed nothing to the theory of evolution, and parasitically expropriated Lamarck, his grandfather, Blyth, Mathews (as Samuel Butler well knew), and finally Alfred Wallace.
Enough’s enough. It is time to call off this Darwin bicentennial celebration.
Stephen P. Smith said,
February 25, 2009 at 3:43 pm
One could argue that Wallace’s passivity was a result of the apparent limits of natural selection that Darwin was clueless about. The theory goes to Wallace because Wallace understood these limits better, and hence had a better account of evolution. Darwin never stole Wallace’s theory, because Darwin got the theory wrong.