There's been a bit of a rumpus echoing through the blogosphere following a series of pop sci articles about Darwin and his legacy (see for example this review of recent stories). Generally, and presumably to attract readers, many make some kind of provocative claim in the title, such as "Was Darwin wrong?" or similar.
In contrast, the February 2009 edition of National Geographic features a rather excellent article by Matt Ridley: Darwin's Legacy. In a refreshing change from the tabloid-style hatchet jobs often seen in the press, this is a measured view of how modern biology has built on Darwin's foundations, and quite responsibly points out that Darwin, for all his breadth of knowledge never knew the physical basis for inheritance.