You are right...in a very limited way...but it still leaves you as being WRONG...since you are claiming Barton is right and the Founding Fathers debated evolution v. creationism. Even if you give Matthew the credit for natural selection, that only moves the date back to 1838...still long after the time of the Founding Fathers. Ergo, you are still wrong and Barton is lying (or else far from the "expert" you claim him to be).<quoted text>
Can you read. Charles Darwin admitted it - Matthews described natural selection before him.
Darwin responded to Matthews in the Gardeners Chronicle for April 21 1860 as follows:
I freely acknowledge that Mr. Matthew has anticipated by many years the explanation which I have offered of the origin of species, under the name of natural selection".
Darwin was forced to preface his 3rd edition of "Origin" to give credit to Matthews and others.
I was right - you never get anything right.
BTW...Darwin gets the credit because Darwin was the first to publish the idea backed up by evidence. All Matthew did was present an idea...with no data. Matthew and Darwin had their ideas about natural selection within a year or so of each other, and independently. Matthew said "interesting idea" and dropped it. Darwin said "interesting idea" and spent twenty years delving into it.
The historian of biology Peter J. Bowler has gone so far as to say that:
Such efforts to denigrate Darwin misunderstand the whole point of the history of science: Matthew did suggest a basic idea of selection, but he did nothing to develop it; and he published it in the appendix to a book on the raising of trees for shipbuilding. No one took him seriously, and he played no role in the emergence of Darwinism. Simple priority is not enough to earn a thinker a place in the history of science: one has to develop the idea and convince others of its value to make a real contribution. Darwin's notebooks confirm that he drew no inspiration from Matthew or any of the other alleged precursors.
Ernst Mayr's opinion was even more clear-cut:
Patrick Matthew undoubtedly had the right idea, just like Darwin did on September 28, 1838, but he did not devote the next twenty years to converting it into a cogent theory of evolution. As a result it had no impact whatsoever.
The ORIGINAL point of this discussion was whether or not the Founding Fathers debated evolution v creationism and came to a conclusive decision. You bringing up Matthew is a non-sequitur to that discussion, for the reasons I have given.
You are clearly grasping at straws, Buck, and throwing out red herrings to divert the discussion.
As I have pointed out before, you are not here to gain understanding, you are here to "win" in some weird egotistical sense.