The author of the book Charles Darwin : Victorian myth-maker, A.N.Wilson was former professor of medieval literature at Oxford University and a highly acclaimed biographer.

Wilson was a Darwin believer when he started research for his book. His conclusions were unexpected, both to others and most surprisingly, to him. What may have begun the firestorm against his book was Wilson’s prelude, in which he said,

Darwin was wrong. That was the unlooked for conclusion to which I was inexorably led while writing this book

Charles Darwin : Victorian Mythmaker - A N Wilson

He added that this conclusion “certainly was not my intention when I began detailed reading for this book”. But the result of his historic research was “to part company from the mainstream of scientific opinion which still claims to believe, the central contentions of Darwin’s famous book, On the Origin of the Species.

Wilson’s conclusion was based on the fact that “there is no consensus among scientists about the theory of evolution”, even the central parts of the theory. He added that until he began his research he had assumed “scientific opinion accepted the truth of Darwin’s central theories, and that objections to it were motivated not by scientific doubts but…. most likely religious ones”

He then illustrates this contention by quoting the leading evolutionary scientists, including Harvard’s E.O. Wilson and Oxford’s Richard Dawkins. One familiar with the field will recognise most of the heated evolution controversies which Wilson accurately relates.

A major problem Darwin had which is still true of Darwinism today was coming up with evidence for his view that nature changes little by little. If this was true , all life would be ” in a state of infinitely slow evolution into something else”, and as Darwin taught, taxonomy classification would only be temporary – a condition the fossil record simply does not support. This problem is why some leading evolutionists argued for punctuated equilibrium, in which life forms, in geological terms , change rapidly while at other times they are in a state of stasis.

Wilson documents that the discovery of the laws of genetics were “lethal to Darwinism”. The reason it was a lethal nail in the coffin for Darwin was the problem that Mendelism created for Darwin’s gradualism. We now know that because nearly all mutations are near neutral or lethal, and variation is not unlimited as Darwin proposed his theory is without foundation.

Wilson also documents that Darwinism has become a religion. Evolution is the doorway to atheism. It was spoken of as a faith, and those that rejected the view that the origin of humans was purely natural, including the co-founder of the theory, Alfred Russel Wallace and St George Mivart were excommunicated from the tribe, the loyal circle of Darwin supporters.

Regardless, there is no doubt that it is Darwin, more than any other man, that persuaded much of the academic world that “special creation” was wrong and ‘evolution’ was right. Furthermore, “Darwinism as is shown by the current state of the debate, is resistant to argument because it is resistant to fact”.


“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. … Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. … [it] came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.”  Would you believe this is a quote in National Post, May 13, 2000 by leading anti-creationist philosopher (and self-proclaimed “ardent evolutionist”) Michael Ruse.

How efforts to prove Darwinism have led to many blunders, frauds and outright forgeries

Evolution's Blunders, Frauds and Forgeries by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.

In this eye-opening new book, Jerry Bergman documents an amazing array of frauds, forgeries, blunders and embarrassments that have marred the history of palaeontology—all in the name of ‘science’—and helped to turn countless people away from their Creator. Available from

This should be no surprise, given that the stakes are so high. The evolution-creation debate deals with some of life’s most important issues—such as, were we created and thus have purpose, or are we and all other living things a spontaneous effervescence of nature, destined for nothing nobler than organic manure? This tour de force by Dr Bergman plunges head-first into this emotion-charged arena. It confirms Ruse’s point ‘in spades’ by dealing with an amazing array of not just frauds and forgeries, but blunders and embarrassments of all types by evolution’s practitioners and promoters. And—importantly—it reveals the way in which they were so readily accepted and believed by some of the biggest names in academia. Many of these examples will be unknown to most; a good number of facts were completely new to me, despite decades of familiarity with the literature in the debate.
The book will be a very significant eye-opener for all who read it. It relentlessly exposes things that most evolutionists would probably rather not discuss, or hope stay forgotten. Readers are free to draw their own conclusions as to what could possibly drive and motivate such a sorry parade, but it becomes blatantly obvious that ‘science’ is no longer a good answer.

Taken from Foreword by Dr Carl Wieland former CEO of CMI.


Despite the overwhelming evidence for design in the universe, Intelligent Design’ (ID) is virtually outlawed in academia. They recognise that it must mean that there is an intelligence behind the design, an intelligence outside and above the design itself; and in the context, the design of living things. The term ID is mocked at school (pupils who espouse it have been humiliated by teachers) and universities and it is dismissed in the media.


INTELLIGENT DESIGN is not really a very intelligent term, because it is tautologous: design must by its very nature be intelligent. Perhaps this can be best explained by looking at the other side of the coin. Could there be such a thing as ‘Unintelligent Design’?

It is incongruous that popular TV presenters of the “natural” world  such as David Attenborough, continually make references to ‘design’. Many features are referred to as ‘a wonderful design’, or it is said that they are ‘designed to’ accomplish some specific end, such as keeping warm, attracting a mate, enabling flight, or whatever. And yet, David Attenborough is utterly opposed to any idea of an outside intelligence.

If ID is not an acceptable concept, but the fact of design is acknowledged, then the only alternative is ‘Unintelligent Design’. Now this does not mean ‘bad’ design (good design and rubbish design both qualify as design), but the absence of any intelligence behind the design.1 Let us give a little thought to what this means. Design’ carries with it the idea of purpose—indeed it is essential to the very concept of design, which must be a teleological act. If it isn’t purposeful, it is no longer design, but merely accident. If something is designed it must be the product of intelligence, whether low or high-level intelligence.

The only alternative to design by an intelligent agent is design by evolution—which, one assumes, must be ‘Unintelligent Design’. But we have already determined that design is not logically possible without intelligence, at some level. How are we to resolve the paradox? According to most dictionary definitions, evolution is a blind stochastic process, simply a description of what allegedly happened in the past without any intelligent input. A process cannot design anything, thus evolution cannot design! But perhaps evolution is more than a process? Although a non-material entity, maybe it has mysterious powers to direct and select. If so, the same powers that theists ascribe to a Creator God are simply being ascribed to evolution. This rather gives the game away.        For its proponents, belief in evolution is a faith, a creed, just as surely as any other faith. We might even say that evolution has become ‘god’ as far as its adherents are concerned, able to do anything ascribed to it. The question needs to be asked. How come evolution is being taught as fact in our schools and universities?

In conclusion, if we refuse to accept the concept of Intelligent Design in the natural world, we have to conclude that our existence is merely the result of countless random events and is utterly meaningless. The presenters of popular science programmes need to take note: nothing is designed to work, and the fact that it does is just an accumulation of billions of accidents. There is one philosophical problem, however. We are creatures who design incessantly. Where did we get our concept of design if there was no such thing?

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Extract of article by  published by Creation Ministries International,  8 March 2018.