|Recent Posts Categories Archives||Link||Print||Email||Share||RSS|
The Patrick Matthew Supermyth
Keywords: Darwin, natural selection, Matthew, Charles Darwin, Patrick Matthew, literal truth, unread,naturalists, mIke weal, cult,
|Author's FavoritesThinker Recommended|
May 13, 2015 at 4:07 pm
Documented, lest I forget:
I’d better set the record straight or my cousin, Gordon, will be claiming primacy of discovery of Mike and his by now becoming more famous by the minute book, Nullius in Verba. So, to quiet his ruffled feathers;
Gordon heard it first.
He picked up something about Patrick Matthew in a late night/early morning radio interview and told me of it.
I duly typed in ‘Patrick Matthew’ into the Google bar and skimming down the content page I came across one that just happened to catch my interested eye. It was Mike’s blog and it mentioned my dad. I just had to know more. So, I clicked on it and all was revealed under a headline that brought tears of joy to my eyes. I read through and found it interested me greatly and there was a link to several other pages but the one link that proved most worthwhile to me at the time was to the radio interview. I listened to the interview right at the numbers directed and grâce à la nouvelle architecture at the BBC I was able to listen not once, not twice, but three times to the content of that section to be able to repeat the hushed and hurried voices to uncover its meaning uttered oft through muffled tones.
Nullius in Verba, a well-known voice of a scratched record from the past, echoed in my ears. I had to know more.
Looking up on Amazon.co.uk (other websites are available), my usual first order of search for all things material and published, apart that is from Goal Zero (other activity and solar equipment sites are possible), I typed in the title, hit return and up came that famous face on a ten pound note. My dad had often queried the face upon the note, its reason for being there and its social acceptance. He had even tried to ask me what I thought, but no words had fallen from my lips on the subject that day. So there was a certain significance to the image which meant I had to look further. I took a look in the search inside and saw the content page and its 20 chapters and thought well, I must look into this!
So, as it had no reviews as yet, I took pity on the author and ordered it and by flight of eeeeeeeeebk it appeared upon the book list in my app on my android tablet (other tablets, far better known with standing and price attached are available). I feverishly swiped page after page until the very end and then I returned to the contents page to understand better the structure of the beast. I thought a few sub topics were needed but no matter. I thought I’d just check out the acknowledgement page to see who he had cited as his sources and given them proper contributor status in the whole thing. I started at the beginning and read right through till the end. The end paragraph just caused a welling up inside me and I will be forever grateful to Mike Sutton, who authored this heavy (in so many ways) tome, for his dedication to my dad, W J Dempster. I had not expected this.
I just had to take a photo on my new telephone, I believe they call it a mobile these days, and sent this straight through to one of my two brothers as justice had been finally served for our dad and his sojourn and wake for Patrick Matthew had been given life again.
I began a thorough read often retracing my steps and using the newly acquired knowledge of the existence of the search facility to read and re-read points of interest and locations of well-worn former topics. I began to appreciate more and more the easy style of writing of this book which I hoped would finally set the story straight and allow us, as a family, to bury the memory of Patrick Matthew with the honours that he deserved.
The identification of primacy in an argument is based on a discovery and then research into the discovery produces evidence to support the hypothesis or discovery, or so the learned Mike Sutton has taught me.
This Matthew versus Darwin thing has been in my family since the late 1970s and it has affected us as children, which we were still then and also my dear mother, Cherry. It is time that we lightened up somewhat and started to laugh at ourselves and enjoy the fact that our father was correct in his belief about the ‘ism’ issue and offended the ‘ists’ on the way by telling everyone and anyone, whether they would listen to him or not, about his discoveries concerning for one Darwin’s non inclusion of the many contributors to the THEORY that he wrote down in his book which passed by the publisher’s unusually non-critical eye on its way to be printed for the next 155 years. It is time to change and make amends to Patrick Matthew and his discovery that so changed the face of science for all time.
To avoid the continuation of the ‘ists’ ruling the day, and effect their immaculate changeover in mortal belief to the truth, one Patrick Matthew, I offer my continued support of you, Dr Mike Sutton.
May 13, 2015 at 7:21 am
I am intrigued by the whole idea of "he never meant it literally". It reminds me of what, in my view, many Christians have done, repeatedly, when confronted with new evidence that some claim in The Bible is no longer needed to explain some phenomenon hitherto credited to God. They change their stance to "that part of The Bible is not meant to be taken literally". It strikes me that if Darwin had not meant a statement to be taken literally he would qualify it as such. To assume that his writings are not to be taken literally unless he qualifies them as literal would be a silly way to view things. The norm is, surely, that his statements should be interpreted as literal unless there is an explicit qualifier, or an extremely obvious context dictates it can't be literal, However, given that this is a response to a serious challenge, such a context isn't apparent. He must have intended it to be taken literally. At what point did anyone first say that Darwin's statement should not be taken literally. Is there documentation of that being said before Mike's challenge? If it is a new response, in the light of Mike's challenge, that kind of suggests a retreat from evidence just like many Christians seem to have done. Everything is literal except the bits which can be disproved, and what is deemed to be literal changes as more disproof comes along.