Fun & the Zombie Darwinite Hoard

Act against de facto fact denial by powerful scientific interest groups.


Please vote on my open letter to the Royal Society on Patrick Matthew's priority for his own prior-published discovery: Here

Dr Arlin Dr Arlin Stoltzfus (2016), of the University of Maryland, Institute for Bioscience and Biotechnology Research on the New Data, teaches brainwashed Darwin worship cult members the importance of objective scholarship and the dangers of fact denial in science (From the Sandwalk blog, August 2016):



'I would be happy to explain to you what is the point of exploring the evidence regarding who deserves credit for an idea such as natural selection. The point is the same as for any other idea: as a scholar, one wants to get this right, because correct attribution is an important part of the social fabric of scholarship, including science. The correct source for natural selection, under the normal rules of attribution, is Patrick Matthew. If, instead, everyone decides to give credit to some revered figure who came in second-place, then this diminishes scholarship and science, and makes it into more of an elite popularity contest. Here's a rhetorical question for you: would you like credit to go to scientific royalty, or would you like science to be more of a meritocracy?


Everyone agrees that Darwin had more influence. There is no difficulty in adjusting our language to respond to this fact, e.g., consider the case of the Modern Synthesis. Mayr, Simpson and Dobzhansky clearly were the most influential in promoting modern neo-Darwinism, but we attribute the actual combination of Darwinism and genetics to Fisher, Haldane and Wright. We could simply refer to Darwin in the same way-- we could say that natural selection was proposed by Matthew, and perhaps Wells, then popularized by Darwin and his influential social circle.


However, what has happened in this case is that, when the evidence that contradicts misinformation peddled by Darwin and his followers is brought forth, Darwinian zombies lurch forward with the same ignorant dismissals, non sequiturs, and so on, which are then cut down, which just makes room for the next wave of zombies.


So, the point is really about the zombie horde. If there were no zombie horde, then the point would be about attribution, but given that the horde is activated whenever Darwin is criticized, the zombie horde becomes the central issue.'

Hey Royal Society! Where's my Darwin Medal?

The Darwin Dead Donkey Sketch

Regarding the 2014 BigData discovery of numerous previously "hidden books", which 100% refute the 155-year-old Darwinist myth that no naturalist known to Darwin or Wallace had read Patrick Matthew's prior published hypothesis of natural selection before 1858, Darwinists believing that their namesake and Wallace "independently" discovered Matthew's prior-published theory, whilst surrounded and influenced by associates who had read and cited the book containing it, are in the same credulous miracle believer category as those who believe in the immaculate conception of the Christian Beloved St Mary of Nazareth.


With apologies to the Monty Python team, from whose famous Dead Parrot Sketch this very heavily plagiarizes



A criminologist enters the Darwinist end of the field of the history of scientific discovery.


Criminologist: ‘Ello, I wish to register a complaint.


( Darwinist does not respond.)


C: ‘Ello, Dysologist?


Darwinist: What do you mean “Dysologist”?


C: I’m sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!


D: We’re closin’ for lunch.


C: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this Darwin book what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.


D: Oh yes, the, uh, the Origin of Species…What’s,uh…What’s wrong with it?


C: I’ll tell you what’s wrong with it, my lad. ‘E’s dead, that’s what’s wrong with it!


D: No, no, ‘e’s uh,…he’s resting.


C: Look, matey, I know a dead donkey when I see one, and I’m looking at one right now.


D: No no he’s not dead, he’s, he’s restin’! Remarkable book, the Origin of Species, idn’it, ay? Beautiful theory!


C: The theory don’t enter into it. Darwin’s discovery story is a donkey and its stone dead.


D: Nononono, no, no! ‘E’s resting!


C: All right then, if he’s restin’, I’ll wake him up!


(shouting at the book)


‘Ello, Mister Darwin! I’ve got a lovely fresh bunch of New Data for you …(Darwinist hits the book)


D: There, he moved!


C: No, he didn’t, that was you hitting the book!


D: I never!!


C: Yes, you did!


D: I never, never did anything…


C: (yelling and hitting the book repeatedly) ‘ELLO Donkey DARWIN!!!!!


Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o’clock alarm call!


(Tears sheath of pages out of the book and thumps them on the counter. Throws them up in the air and watches them flutter to the floor.)


C: Now that’s what I call a dead Darwin Donkey.


D: No, no…..No, ‘e’s stunned!




D: Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was wakin’ up! Darwinists stun easily, major.


C: Um…now look…now look, mate, I’ve definitely ‘ad enough of this. That Donkey is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not ‘alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein’ tired and shagged out following a prolonged braying.


D: Well, he’s…he’s, ah…probably pining for the Galapagos Islands.


C: PININ’ for the Galapogos?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why did he fall flat on his back the moment I started checkin the facts on Google?


D: The Darwinist donkey prefers kippin’ on it’s back! Remarkable scientist, id’nit, squire? Lovely theory!


C: Look, I took the liberty of examining that story of independent discovery when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had been braying about it for so long was that nobody had bothered to Google it.




D: Well, o’course it was braying about it! If I had checked the facts myself , it would have nuzzled up to the spine of that book, bent ‘it apart with its hooves, and VOOM! Feeweeweewee!


C: “VOOM”?!? Mate, this Donkey wouldn’t “voom” if you put four million volts through it! ‘E’s bleedin’ demised!


D: No no! ‘E’s pining!


C: ‘E’s not pinin’! ‘E’s passed on! This Donkey is no more! He has ceased to be! ‘E’s expired and gone to meet ‘is maker!


‘E’s a stiff! Bereft of life, ‘e rests in peace! If you hadn’t been so bloody credulous ‘e’d be pushing up the daisies 155 years ago!

‘Is metabolic processes are now ‘istory! ‘E’s off the paddock!

‘E’s kicked the bucket, ‘e’s shuffled off ‘is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisibile!!






Darwinist: Well, I’d better replace it, then.



Interpretation and Conclusions


Many 19th century European winters were particularly harsh. In London there were winters when the Thames froze solid. There came reports that two sentries froze to death whilst standing to attention in Paris one year. Perhaps they reasoned it better to die of cold, rather than face execution for abandoning their posts? Or perhaps the "frozen frog principle" was confirmed and the cold crept slowly upon them until it was mind-numbingly too late to realize the danger? If the tale is true, whatever was in the minds of the dead soldiers cannot be known. But they were unlikely to have remained standing unless slumped against something. Tales of people dying and staying on their feet are as rare as hens teeth. The only one I know of involved a kitchen unit aiding post-mortem support.


From the same source as the frozen sentries story, we learn that on the same night that those obedient order following guards met their maker, each with their musket at their shoulder, an honest donkey froze where it stood on a Parisian boulevard. At daybreak, the people seeing it so lifelike, tried to shoo and beat it out of the way, not realizing it could not move on because it was dead!


The Dead Sentry, Dead Donkey Analogy is, like all, analogies, a fallacy. Darwin and Darwinists are not actually donkeys or sentries. But what makes it a good explanatory device is showing, outside of the analogy, what relates to what and why it is an important explanation. So I do that in the following four paragraphs.


In the story of the discovery of natural selection, new data was discovered in 2014 . That data 100 per cent disproves the Darwinist story that no naturalists known to Darwin and Wallace had read Patrick Matthew's prior published hypothesis of natural slection before 1858. So important and influential were those naturalists, who we now newly know read Matthew's (1831) book, Darwin's "independent discovery story" simply cannot stand up against the new data. My discussions and debates with Darwinists to date reveal why all of their excuses for Darwin can be demolished with reference to the facts and the rule of priority for scientific discovery.


For some months now I have been both cajoling and often-times berating Darwinists to get out of the way and accept the fact that the New Data proves Matthew more likely than not influenced Darwin and Wallace and so accept that Matthew deserves recognition over and above those two replicators as an immortal great thinker in science. The facts establish it more likely than not that Matthew did influence Darwin and Wallace and so it was he who ultimately changed the world with his bombshell conception and explanation of what is arguably the most important idea in science.


My efforts have been in vain. Why? Because I never realized I was dealing with dead sentries of Darwinism and similarly dead donkeys! They have nothing left. Bereft of counter evidence their story is pushing up the daises!


The only solution is to walk around them and carry on. The true story of the discovery of natural selection cannot be told by dead donkey Darwinists.


A Prediction


Even before Darwin's Darwinist Discovery Donkeys became extinct following the 21st century catastrophe of the New Data impact, many had enjoyed an unwarranted power of occupancy in the literature. This was simply because no suitably equipped competitors wandered inside their ecological niche. The rudimentary habitats of so many Darwinists were just waiting to be swept aside by the first half-decent rival to sniff them out.


Unable to police ethically or objectively the history of the discovery of natural selection, unable to fight back veraciously or rationally, and unwilling to evolve when confronted by overpoweringly dis-confirming hard evidence for their unevidenced knowledge beliefs in Darwin's and Wallace's dual immaculate conceptions of Matthew's prior published hypothesis, the Darwinist Discovery Donkeys became intellectually extinct.


Confirming the theory of natural selection, the history of its discovery was taken over by those intellectually fittest to survive. Namely, social scientists.

Darwinists really do simply faith-believe in The Blessed Virgins Darwin and Wallace Miracle

Darwinist un-evidenced faith belief in Darwin's and Wallace's dual immaculate conceptions of a prior published hypothesis has led to the establishment of The Church of the Immaculate Conception of a Prior-Published Theory


Why not attend some of their side-splitting services {Here}?

Follow The Virgin Darwin who is tweeting on Twitter as the champion of Patrick Matthew - the biological father of the theory of natural selection AKA 'The Seer of Gourdie Hill'


Solver of the problem of species



In 1831, the Scottish laird, farmer, orchard owner, grain dealer and botanist, Patrick Matthew, authored 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture.' Matthew's book is universally recognised as the first publication to contain the complete hypothesis of the theory of natural selection. New evidence proves that both Darwin and Wallace lied by pretending they had no prior-knowledge of it; both committed science fraud by plagiarising Matthew's discovery, his name for it, his examples of the process in nature compared to culture. They even ripped-off his unique creative perspective.

The Shame of It! Darwinists Believe in a Dual Supernatural Miracle of Immaculate Conception of a Prior-Published Theory!


Patrick Matthew