INTRODUCTION PAGE OF WAS DARWIN RIGHT?

Please note, other sites will open up as frames within this site in many instances. These will not have the same green background. 
This site is best viewed with Internet Explorer at 1024x768 screen resolution with page set to 100%.

Background   Extract from Spectator magazine   Site aims   Disclaimer   Translate

New page - May 2008 - Viewpoints - make a comment on the new page?

Dr John Lennox, who is a Christian, asserts in his book "God's Undertaker - Has science buried God?" that science and philosophy show evidence of a divine designer.  

View and listen to the debate here between Dr John Lennox and Professor Richard Dawkins. Einstein quoted on God.

Background. Charles Darwin published his book "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" in 1859. Although the theory has been modified since Darwin's original theory (for example neo-Darwinism), he is still considered a major originator of the theory of evolution as it stands today. Although still a theory, nowadays the theory of evolution tends to be accepted largely as fact in most schools and universities across the world and by most of the media. 

However, since the theory of evolution was first put forward, scientific knowledge has progressed enormously. One major area of scientific progress since Darwin's day concerns DNA. The structure of DNA, the way in which DNA replicates and codes for proteins and the genes involved in coding for specific proteins were unknown in Darwin's day. Also, in Darwin's day there was little known about the intricate and highly complex inner workings of cells, they were thought to be relatively simple. 

Indeed, there are now many well qualified scientists and academics such as Professor Michael Behe (Biochemist and author of Darwin's Black Box), Michael Denton (molecular biologist, medical Doctor and author of Evolution: A Theory In Crisis), Professor Paul Back (Former Rhodes scholar and author of Darwinism and The Rise of Degenerate  Science) and David Swift (author of Evolution Under the Microscope: A Scientific Critique of the Theory of Evolution) and many others who are writing quality scientific books that question the science behind the theory of evolution. 

Professor Michael Behe  comments that there have always been since the time of Darwin, well informed and respected scientists who have found Darwinism to be inadequate (Darwin's Black Box, page 30) and Michael Denton also makes a similar comment in his book  Evolution: A Theory In Crisis.

So, does current scientific knowledge try to fit to an old theory that is no longer viable? Is there any scientific justification to believing in Creation or is belief in Creation an outdated belief like the old belief held by Eighteenth century scientists that phlogiston was released into air by combustion? 

Is it not possible that God designed creatures to adapt to a limited extent to their environment and created diversity within species as part of a beautiful and imaginative Creation?

Some quotable quotes  (Science quotes)

"The percentage of people in the country who accept the idea of evolution has declined from 45 in 1985 to 40 in 2005. Meanwhile the fraction of Americans unsure about evolution has soared from 7 per cent in 1985 to 21 per cent last year." Science 2006, vol. 313 p765.

BBC news, January 26th 2006. "Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life," according to a recent MORI opinion poll. "Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons" - see Britons unconvinced on evolution

700 Scientists who have at least a doctorate and don't believe in Darwinism

"Once only religious nuts questioned Darwinism. All that has changed" The Spectator 24th October 2003.

"Seventy-one percent of adult Americans think that the evidence against Darwin should be taught in schools." The Spectator 24th October 2003.

"A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." Darwin, Origin of the species.

  "Darwinists this month are celebrating the 80th anniversary of the Scopes trial. But critics of evolution note an irony lost on the Darwinists in the midst of their celebrations, namely, that they now behave exactly like the silencers of science they once reviled. Desperate to shut down debate that exposes their evolutionary theory as unsustainable conjecture, the Darwinists are using the incantations of an ideology they call science and the power of law to prevent the teaching of any concepts besides random variation and natural selection. While Darwinists still pose as champions of free inquiry, they actively suppress it in the name of their scientific dogmatism." American Spectator 29th July 2005

Extract from Spectator magazine. Below in purple is an abstract taken from the Spectator of October 24th 2003 (from on-line publication, permission requested).

A few weeks ago I was talking to a friend, a man who has more postgraduate degrees than I have GCSEs. The subject of Darwinism came up. ‘Actually,’ he said, raising his eyebrows, ‘I don’t believe in evolution.’

I reacted with incredulity: ‘Don’t be so bloody daft.’

‘I’m not,’ he said. 'Many Scientists admit that the theory of evolution is in trouble these days. There are too many things it can’t explain'.

‘Like what?’

‘The gap in the fossil record'.

‘Oh, that old chestnut!’ My desire to scorn was impeded only by a gap in my knowledge more glaring than that in the fossil record itself.

Last Saturday at breakfast with my flatmates, there was a pause in conversation. ‘Hands up anyone who has doubts about Darwinism,’ I said. To my surprise all three — a teacher, a music agent and a playwright — slowly raised their arms. One had read a book about the inadequacies of Darwin — Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis; another, a Christian, thought that Genesis was still the best explanation for the universe. The playwright blamed the doctrine of survival of the fittest for ‘capitalist misery and the oppression of the people’. Nearly 150 years after the publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species, a taboo seems to be lifting.

Until recently, to question Darwinism was to admit to being either a religious nut or just plain thick. ‘Darwin’s theory is no longer a theory but a fact,’ said Julian Huxley in 1959. For most of the late 20th century Darwinism has seemed indubitable, even to those who have as little real understanding of the theory as they do of setting the video-timer. I remember a recent conversation with my mother: ‘Do you believe in evolution, Mum?’ ‘Of course I do, darling. If you use your thumbs a lot, you will have children with big thumbs. If they use their thumbs a lot, and so do their children, then eventually there will be a new sort of person with big thumbs.’

The whole point of natural selection is that it denies that acquired characteristics can be inherited. According to modern Darwinism, new species are created by a purposeless, random process of genetic mutation. If keen Darwinians such as my mother can get it wrong, it is perhaps not surprising that the theory is under attack.

The current confusion is the result of a decade of campaigning by a group of Christian academics who work for a think-tank called the Discovery Institute in Seattle. Their guiding principle — which they call Intelligent Design theory or ID — is a sophisticated version of St Thomas Aquinas’ Argument from Design.

Over the last few years they have had a staggering impact. Just a few weeks ago, they persuaded an American publisher of biology textbooks to add a paragraph encouraging students to analyse theories other than Darwinism. Over the past two years they have convinced the boards of education in Ohio, Michigan, West Virginia and Georgia to teach children about Intelligent Design. Indiana and Texas are keen to follow suit. They sponsor debates, set up research fellowships, publish books, distribute flyers and badges, and conduct polls, the latest of which shows that 71 per cent of adult Americans think that the evidence against Darwin should be taught in schools. To top.

Site aims. This site is dedicated to giving a simple overview of what the theory of evolution says and scientifically based arguments as to why belief in Creation or Intelligent design could be scientifically valid. The site is designed for those who want a grasp of some key points and is not intended to be comprehensive. 

Additionally, for those interested in the Christian faith, see the Faith page, and for those interested in issues like abortion and eugenics, see the Does it matter page. 

At the bottom of most pages there are suggested books and videos and on-line links for those who want to study the subject in more depth.

Whatever your viewpoint, it is hoped you find something of interest on this site. We would like to hear your thoughts about this site so please leave a comment about the site or anything else at the Guest-book. 

We would like to point out that we respect people who believe in evolution, but would like to offer the "other side" of the debate, for those who are interested. To top.

Disclaimer. This site aims to be fair and present true information, even if the slant of looking at that information is different from that presented in the usually accepted theory of evolution. Those who think the site has errors are welcome to leave a comment on the Guest-book or E-mail us from the Contact page. In the past, where there have been true errors rather just differences of opinion, changes to the site have been made. However, just as biology text books go out of date, so it is with this site that not all the information will necessarily be absolutely up to date. The structure of DNA has not changed since it was discovered in the 1950's by Watson and Crick, but new fossils are being discovered, and thus some of the data on this site, with respect to say the latest theories on some possible intermediate fossil may not be up to date and this site can not be held responsible for any such misinformation. However, this site uses material from qualified scientists and no misinformation (if there is any) is deliberate. 

Translate text of this site here.

Welcome, unique visitor since December 2000