My target audience is anyone from 10 to 100 who wonders why when everything else is doubted and questioned all the time, they aren't allowed to ask questions about Darwinism or discuss the problems with unguided molecules to man evolution, and any other sceptics who might wish to acquaint themselves with the arguments of the Darwin dissenters rather than swallow the approved establishment view.

I  have not dealt with all areas of the controversy, my work is incomplete. For example, I have not said a lot about geology since biology is what I know best. This self-funded project took up much of my fishing and cycling time in 2006/2007. I don't intend to make this my life's work. While I was researching, I found so many excellent resources on the web which I felt no need to duplicate, that I have not attempted to do much more, and I will probably not be adding much to the work as of autumn 2007. (currently doing a bit of tidying up, December 2010) I ran a Blogger questiondarwin blog in the run up to and during Darwin's bicentenary year 2009, partly as I was so angry at the 100% unquestioning worship lavished upon Darwin across the media during this period with no dissent heard, but took it down in late 2009 as I felt it had served its purpose and keeping it up had become a pressure and I had other things to do.

My work here and on the now defunct questiondarwin blog has been described as laughable. Interestingly, that is exactly what God says about man's efforts to disenthrone Him (see Psalm 2). 'He who sits in the heavens laughs'. He who laughs last......

As a Christian, I know I should not make unpleasant remarks about people with whom I disagree, or their deeply held beliefs, even when they slander and curse me. Sorely provoked, I often fail to live up to this standard. So much the worse for me.

Am I anti-science, as some have said? Absolutely not. I oppose Darwinistic evolution principally on scientific grounds. I insist that I understand, practice, love and uphold the scientific method. SCIENCE is supposed to be about a disinterested search for true knowledge, and about testing theories to see if they can be falsified. But SCIENTISTS being human are not immune to pride, jealousy, irrational behaviour, incorrect thinking, ignorance, prejudice, selfish ambition, a desire for job security and honours, sucking up to the boss, and plain and simple error. Scientists respond to peer pressure, threats, bullying, temptations, inducements and the pressure to conform just like the rest of us. As the premier UK science body the Royal Society says in it's motto 'Take the word of no man'. Quite so. We should demand evidence, remembering that the establishment has been and can be wrong, whether through honest ignorance, group dynamics, consipracy, pride, inertia, denial or a mixture of all these factors.

Scientists are only motivated by the search for truth, are they? Can you honestly say that you believe that the British science establishment welcomes honest attempts to falsify evolution? Or that people's doubts are at least sometimes kept to themselves through fear? Look up the Michael Reiss or Richard Sternberg affairs, these men's careers were damaged by the Darwinist establishment not because they doubted Darwin, they did not, but because they said the issue could, within limits, be DISCUSSED! And that was the real message of the infamous Dover Intelligent design trial-if you even talk about allowing Darwin to be questioned-we will crush you. So don't even THINK about TALKING about it! Again, peer review. What does 'peer review' mean? It means 'me and my mates, who define truth by our mutual consent, are of the opinion...'.Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal, was on the BBC radio 4 Today programme last week talking about the peer review process, after work had been published in the BMJ (which I take) a week earlier about how peer review, that hallowed process meant to ensure the highest standards of objectivity, is often abused to protect vested interests and stop certain ideas going forward. The idea that scientists are totally objective is highly questionable.

I do not apologise for saying that Charles Darwin was wrong about evolution.

He was utterly wrong, and probably knew it.

Even given the near-total ignorance of biochemistry, genetics etc at the time, he should have known, and perhaps DID know, at the time that his results did not justify his conclusions. Darwin plagiarised, oversimplified, made gigantic assumptions, was highly selective in his evidence and examples, and I am sorry to say used subtle trickery to dissemble away rather than honestly answer 'problems with the theory'. Darwin used circular arguments and self-referential reasoning, straw man tactics and he fudged or avoided key issues. His followers today do the same.

The most obvious examples were the issue of origin of life which he totally avoided, and the obstacle to his theory of non-functioning intermediate structures, e.g. reptile arm to bird wing. To get from one to the other by 'innumerable small changes' as his hypothesis asserted, many useless intermediate stages MUST NECESSARILY have existed but COULD NOT HAVE BEEN SELECTED FOR AS THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN NON FUNCTIONAL. Even in 1857, this was in-your-face evident and by itself should have strangled his hypothesis at birth. Why did it not do so? Because many influential protagonists, such as Haeckel and Huxley, and Marx and his fellow revolutionaries, very much WANTED a God-free origins story because of their hatred of the Christian religion, which stood in the way of their revolutionary ideas. Would it had stood more effectively against the secular ideologies of Naziism and Communism that turned the 20th century into a slaughterhouse! Like Darwin, they 'imagined' and 'supposed' away the difficulties. The same thing happens today, and for the same reason.

Unguided molecules to man evolution is not a morally neutral concept-it gets rid of the need for a creator God. This was obvious at the time, it was also obvious that people who wanted there to be no God, or at least no 'Big Scary God' were the most active in promoting evolution, as they do today.

If the Christian God is dead, slain by Darwin as we are told, and this can be proved, we'll have to live with that as Dawkins says, and we'll have to try and find some way other than the love of God, divine law and the fear of righteous judgement to restrain our selfish and evil desires and make us act with disinterested love towards one another. Not much success so far on that one, as you can tell from the News.

But investigative science cannot prove or disprove God. Many atheists admit this, as Alister McGrath (Oxford professor of theology and science pHD) writes. Science can however demonstrate multiple insuperable difficulties for the supposed scientific theory of molecules to man evolution. Numerous science facts falsify evolution fatally at multiple points. These facts, even the mention of them, are actively suppressed in our education system and media-something which would not occur in any other field of science. Correction, any field of science. If Darwinism cannot be questioned then it is not science but dogma.

Professor Michael Behe is on record as saying that when he first came across this evidence against Darwinistic evolution, well into his career as a research biochemist, he was angry (and he is a very mild tempered man) that it had been kept from him for so long. It is NORMAL for differing points of view to exist in any area of science, but ABNORMAL for dissenting views to be suppressed. Take global warming-nobody doubts that the planet is warming up, this can be measured-majority opinion (from which I have no reason to dissent) is that this is due to burning fossil fuel and other human activity. However, a minority asserts that it is due to the sun heating up. Minority views can be unexpectedly proved right in time, but even if they aren't, it does science no good to suppress them, yet this routinely happens with arguments against evolution.