Intelligent Design

[Guest Kearny Christian]

New movie coming out next week. "Expelled", produced by Ben Stein, blows the lid off the

Leftist atheistic fraud called "evolution". Stein presents compelling evidence for "Intelligent Design" and

shows how little evidence there is for random evolution.

This should be required viewing for all the loony atheists. (maybe some can be saved).

[Guest Kearnian with common sense]

New movie coming out next week. "Expelled", produced by Ben Stein, blows the lid off the

Leftist atheistic fraud called "evolution".

Hahahaha, you wish. The movie is a particularly horrendous attempt, not even at defending "intelligent design", but just at spending the whole movie trying to link evolution to Nazism.

Even Kent Hovind at least gives a definition of evolution to argue against, even if it's a total straw man. Even Hovind is a step above Expelled.

Stein presents compelling evidence for "Intelligent Design" and

shows how little evidence there is for random evolution.

Actually, the movie doesn't even contain a DEFINITION for EITHER term, much less evidence. The movie pretends to be about the fact that creationists are muzzled, but then did you see what happened at one of the screenings? These hypocrites expelled from a screening one of the scientists who was interviewed in the movie.

This should be required viewing for all the loony atheists. (maybe some can be saved).

I don't think Ken Miller would appreciate being labeled an atheist, being a devout Christian and a staunch supporter of evolution. Of course, Miller wasn't invited to be interviewed for this movie because he doesn't fit the false dichotomy Expelled tries to dupe people into believing. Never mind that science makes no comment on the supernatural, EVOLUTION = ATHEISM = COMMUNISM = BERLIN WALL = NAZIS, am I right? The funniest/scariest part is that the preceding sentence is NOT an exaggeration of the claims in Expelled. It's really that bad.

http://expelledexposed.com/

[Guest *Autonomous*]

New movie coming out next week. "Expelled", produced by Ben Stein, blows the lid off the

Leftist atheistic fraud called "evolution". Stein presents compelling evidence for "Intelligent Design" and

shows how little evidence there is for random evolution.

This should be required viewing for all the loony atheists. (maybe some can be saved).

Except that even Fox News has been saying it s**ks:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348468,00.html

I guess Fox News is Leftist now?

[Guest *Autonomous*]

Another thing-somewhere between 42-55% (depending on which study you trust) of Americans reject evolution. Between 2-6% are atheists-you do the math.

[Guest *billydee4*]

New movie coming out next week. "Expelled", produced by Ben Stein, blows the lid off the

Leftist atheistic fraud called "evolution". Stein presents compelling evidence for "Intelligent Design" and

shows how little evidence there is for random evolution.

This should be required viewing for all the loony atheists. (maybe some can be saved).

Here is Fox's review of the movie: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348468,00.html.

[Guest Paul]

New movie coming out next week. "Expelled", produced by Ben Stein, blows the lid off the

Leftist atheistic fraud called "evolution". Stein presents compelling evidence for "Intelligent Design" and

shows how little evidence there is for random evolution.

This should be required viewing for all the loony atheists. (maybe some can be saved).

This is so sad. Have you seen the film?

If you haven't, how do you know it blows the lid off anything? Do you really think that a movie can undo 150 years of scientific advance, or undo the central principle of modern biology? Do you have any idea what evolutionary theory is? I'm sure you don't, or you wouldn't write these things.

You're really saying that you've made up your mind to believe whatever it tells you - because it's telling you what you want to believe.

Think about it. If someone or something was going to "blow the lid off" evolution, or any other established science, how would it happen? It would happen by someone discovering something, working with the new data, and then exploring the subject within the scientific community. Its first stop would be peer reviewed publications. That hasn't happened. As that was going on, it would be in the newspapers. That hasn't happened. The most important principle in all of biology isn't going to be undone in a movie studio. Do you have any idea how ridiculous you look making a statement like that?

I was going to post on evolution anyway. It is widely considered to be one of the greatest and most important ideas in history, many people think it is the greatest of all.

Let's not fight over this, and please, don't call names - not that I can stop you. This is not driven from the left. Darwin wasn't political, and the scientists in this field are of all political stripes. The development and practice of evolutionary theory is driven from the contributions made to our lives by evolutionary theory as it has developed. I'll explain this to the best of my limited ability on another topic.

I am so sorry that you refuse to hear this. Evolution is not a game or a product of politics. You couldn't live the life you're living without it.

Read - not just what you read about evolution in your religious pamphlets, but what the scientists in the field are saying. Think about it - not just for a moment with the intent of dismissing it, but for real and for a good long while. Then decide.

[Guest Captain Obvious]

New movie coming out next week. "Expelled", produced by Ben Stein, blows the lid off the

Leftist atheistic fraud called "evolution". Stein presents compelling evidence for "Intelligent Design" and

shows how little evidence there is for random evolution.

This should be required viewing for all the loony atheists. (maybe some can be saved).

Few movies do as terrible a job at criticizing evolution as Expelled. Not only is there ZERO evidence for Intelligent Design (aka creationism) provided in the movie, but on the movie's website, they've admitted that tying evolution to Nazi Germany is the "thread that ties the movie together"!

Sorry, stupid, stupid creationists. First of all, Hitler said many times that he was doing God's work, so if anything, you'd have to blame Christianity more, since he never explicitly mentioned anything about evolution (the idea of a "master race" actually goes AGAINST evolution). Secondly, whether or not person X misused evolution to an end has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that evolution is, well, a fact. See the following pages:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lyi...Richard-Dawkins

www.notjustatheory.com

[Guest Guest]

"Expelled" has already been debunked.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/valerie-tari...-c_b_96263.html

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/...t=1207846860000

Compare

with

It's exactly the same argument, and it's childish.

Stein's main argument is silly. "Darwinists" are not afraid. We just realize there's no reason to fund research on ID, any more than there's reason to fund research on FSM.

There is money behind ID. Let them fund their own "research." If it's useful, it will surface and prevail. Stein's demand that universities and governments fund silliness is without merit.

[Guest Guest]

One of the problems with Stein's film is that people who do not understand science will not understand what the scientists in it are saying. Take this example, which you can find at http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=7746

Myth #4: Popular author and atheist Richard Dawkins tells Ben Stein in this film that there could have been a designer of life on earth, but it would have had to have been ""a higher intelligence"" that had itself evolved ""to a very high level . . . and seeded some form of life on this planet.""

Well, actually . . . that one is not a myth. He really did say it——striking admission, though it is.

Except it's not an admission. All Dawkins is saying, is that hypothetically, if we assume the existence of a conscious creator, here are the limits of the thought experiment. He's not making any admission about what has happened since life appeared on earth, or about the evolutionary process that has occurred since. His comments lie outside the data and are purely hypothetical. They are therefore irrelevant.

Dawkins has seen the film, and has called it shoddy and inept.

P. Z. Myers, who was also in the film, was not allowed into the screening.

People like Stein have no clue what they're doing. This so-called movie is going to get blasted. The creationists are shooting themselves in the collective foot.

[Guest Kearny Christian]

This is so sad. Have you seen the film?

If you haven't, how do you know it blows the lid off anything? Do you really think that a movie can undo 150 years of scientific advance, or undo the central principle of modern biology? Do you have any idea what evolutionary theory is? I'm sure you don't, or you wouldn't write these things.

You're really saying that you've made up your mind to believe whatever it tells you - because it's telling you what you want to believe.

Think about it. If someone or something was going to "blow the lid off" evolution, or any other established science, how would it happen? It would happen by someone discovering something, working with the new data, and then exploring the subject within the scientific community. Its first stop would be peer reviewed publications. That hasn't happened. As that was going on, it would be in the newspapers. That hasn't happened. The most important principle in all of biology isn't going to be undone in a movie studio. Do you have any idea how ridiculous you look making a statement like that?

I was going to post on evolution anyway. It is widely considered to be one of the greatest and most important ideas in history, many people think it is the greatest of all.

Let's not fight over this, and please, don't call names - not that I can stop you. This is not driven from the left. Darwin wasn't political, and the scientists in this field are of all political stripes. The development and practice of evolutionary theory is driven from the contributions made to our lives by evolutionary theory as it has developed. I'll explain this to the best of my limited ability on another topic.

I am so sorry that you refuse to hear this. Evolution is not a game or a product of politics. You couldn't live the life you're living without it.

Read - not just what you read about evolution in your religious pamphlets, but what the scientists in the field are saying. Think about it - not just for a moment with the intent of dismissing it, but for real and for a good long while. Then decide.

The point Ben Stein makes is that evolution and I.D. are not mutually exclusive, as atheists

would have you believe. Most Christians believe as Stein points out, evolution is the vehicle (if

you will) that God used to create all the creatures of the earth. God created evolution, in so many

words.

Of course this doesn't fit well with atheists who disavow the existence of God and instead insist

that evolution is just a matter of happenstance and serendipity.

If want to believe that all the forces of nature, such as gravity, came about mysteriously

without I.D. then fine, that's what atheists do. For the rest of us, we'll stick with God.

[Guest *Autonomous*]

The point Ben Stein makes is that evolution and I.D. are not mutually exclusive, as atheists

would have you believe. Most Christians believe as Stein points out, evolution is the vehicle (if

you will) that God used to create all the creatures of the earth. God created evolution, in so many

words.

Of course this doesn't fit well with atheists who disavow the existence of God and instead insist

that evolution is just a matter of happenstance and serendipity.

If want to believe that all the forces of nature, such as gravity, came about mysteriously

without I.D. then fine, that's what atheists do. For the rest of us, we'll stick with God.

The belief that you described is theistic evolution, not ID. ID states that certain characteristics cannot be explained by evolution and therefore must be the result of an Intelligent Designer. The problem is that (as the Dover case showed) they haven't actually come up with anything that fits the criteria. Another problem is that even if they do, all it will show is science cannot currently explain it, not that an Intelligent Designer did it.

I have no problem with someone believing whatever they want-I just don't want it taught as science. Btw-the happenstance and serendipity has nothing to do with evolution-in fact, it shows that you don't actually understand the basic principles of evolution. I suggest reading The Fossil Trail by Ian Tattersall.

Finally-how can Jesus be the Last Adam if there was no Adam? What does Original Sin mean without the Garden of Eden? There are some serious theological problems that arise with theistic evolution.

[Guest Paul]

The point Ben Stein makes is that evolution and I.D. are not mutually exclusive, as atheists

would have you believe. Most Christians believe as Stein points out, evolution is the vehicle (if

you will) that God used to create all the creatures of the earth. God created evolution, in so many

words.

Of course this doesn't fit well with atheists who disavow the existence of God and instead insist

that evolution is just a matter of happenstance and serendipity.

If want to believe that all the forces of nature, such as gravity, came about mysteriously

without I.D. then fine, that's what atheists do. For the rest of us, we'll stick with God.

What you've written here is not true. You're presuming to speak for people whose position you do not understand. Atheists and secularists do not say that a creator-god is incompatible with evolution. (Some theists take that position.) Most atheists and secularists discuss the question of mutual incompatibility as a hypothetical proposition, as follows:

We know evolution happened. The evidence is overwhelming. Consider the two possibilities regarding the existence of a creator-god:

1. If we assume the existence of a creator-god, then this god must have allowed for evolution to occur. But that's only a hypothetical argument. It says nothing about the existence of a creator-god.

2. We do not assume the existence of a creator-god. The question of such a god is irrelevant to our understanding of nature because there is nothing we can use from any assumption we might make that gets us anywhere. Evolution is the subject of our concern, not things we can't know anything about. It's a question of how much a person thinks he "must" know. That's our position. You have it completely wrong.

So if you want to believe that there's a god no one has ever seen and whose origins you cannot explain, that's your prerogative. For those of us who think according to the evidence, we'll let the mystery be - because that's what it is.

Why isn't that a better and more reasoned position to take?

[Guest Guest]

The point Ben Stein makes is that evolution and I.D. are not mutually exclusive, as atheists

would have you believe.

Sure they are. Creationism (called "Intelligent Design" by deceptive people who like to try and make creationism sound more scientific) insists that speciation (even though it's happened several times) is impossible, that there is some sort of magical (God knows these idiots have never defined this barrier) barrier that allows change beneath the species level, but that automatically stops change from occurring at or above the species level. This is absurd, and runs in direct contradiction to the fact of evolution.

Most Christians believe as Stein points out, evolution is the vehicle (if

you will) that God used to create all the creatures of the earth. God created evolution, in so many

words.

Of course this doesn't fit well with atheists who disavow the existence of God and instead insist

that evolution is just a matter of happenstance and serendipity.

No, it's only creationists who would define evolution in such an erroneous way. Natural selection is the exact OPPOSITE of "happenstance" or "serendipity"; it's sure not 'random' when a species that has a mutation that makes it better adapted to its environment has a higher chance of surviving/reproducing. The fastest prey are best at avoiding predators--that's "happenstance" to you? Sounds more like "very obvious" to me.

If want to believe that all the forces of nature, such as gravity, came about mysteriously

without I.D. then fine, that's what atheists do. For the rest of us, we'll stick with God.

"Intelligent Design", as proven in the Dover case, is nothing more than creationism repackaged. It was proven most obviously by an analysis of the IDiots' own submission to the case as an example of an ID textbook (Of Pandas and People). Looking at an earlier draft, they saw that where it says "design proponent" today, it used to say "creationist" before the Supreme Court ruling that creationism was religious. They even found a "missing link" (irony of ironies) where one of the replacements was botched, so instead of replacing "creationist" with "design proponent", they got mixed together, and the text read "cdesign proponentist".

It's just more of the same nonsense of wanting to preach in public school. You've failed, you will continue to fail, just give up. You're never going to overturn evolution with empty rhetoric and lies, and that is what Expelled is nothing but--one giant ad hominem attack.

Also, gravity, the origin of the universe, the origin of the Earth, and the origin of life ON Earth--these are all things that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the Theory of Evolution. This is just a creationist conflation, and yet another sign that they have no idea what they're talking about.

Keep your religion out of science class, and I'll promise not to think in your church, 'kay?

[Guest Keith]

The irony just hit me. Mankind has only known any real science for what would amount to a nano second of the earth's exitence. Various forms evolution as we know it takes possibly thousands to millions of years to occur. Creationist seem to think that if they can't watch evolution as it happens before thier very eyes, then it must not be true although the very science that put a man on the moon and countless other modern marvels has physical proof and timelines in which evolution can be watched to some extent.Not just words in a book. Conversely creationist also cannot watch in "real time" anything ever described in any biblical text, there is absolutely no physical proof other than man made text that one iota of any of it ever happened. Yet it "must be" the way it happened. If someone does agree with evolution that doesn't automatically mean they don't believe in god, it just means the are open minded enough to question our existence and continue to look for answers. Even Christians have evolved to some degree in that they no longer burn witches. It seems as if some would like to revert back to the more draconian methods to ensure the propogation of thier power base. Power. Isn't that what it's really all about in regards to the human race?

[WilliamK]

If want to believe that all the forces of nature, such as gravity, came about mysteriously

without I.D. then fine, that's what atheists do.

Mysteriously? Yes, of course. That's what unknown things are. A mystery. The fundamental philosophical difference between atheists and theists is that for the atheist, the answer to questions unknown is simply "I don't know", while for the theist, the answer is "God". The theist and the atheist are equally ignorant, but the atheist acknowledges his ignorance, while the theist hides his behind a mythology in an attempt to deceive everyone, but especially himself, that he is not ignorant.

This is understandable, really. None of us is proud of our ignorance, but each is possessed of vast quantities of it. I think that most atheists and theists alike would agree that the set of things that we don't know is vastly larger than the set of things we do know. It isn't difficult to admit this ignorance in the general sense. But, when faced with specific questions, it becomes more difficult. Especially the philosophically significant questions that affect how we see the world and how we live our lives.

I would like very much to have answers to fundamental questions such as "How did we come to be?" "Why did we come to be?" "What is the purpose of life in general?", "What is the purpose of my life in particular?", "Why is there anything at all?", and many others. But, as comforting as it would be to believe that I have answers for those questions, answers that would provide some purpose and philosophical grounding for my life, I still prefer the atheist position. Which is that the unknown is simply unknown. That it is better to admit that I don't know what the absolute purpose of life is than to pretend that I do. That it is better to accept that there may not be one than to pretend that there must be. Why? Because by admitting my ignorance, I can work towards reducing it. By not depending on a belief in an external source of purpose, my purpose becomes my own.

[Guest *Autonomous*]

Few movies do as terrible a job at criticizing evolution as Expelled. Not only is there ZERO evidence for Intelligent Design (aka creationism) provided in the movie, but on the movie's website, they've admitted that tying evolution to Nazi Germany is the "thread that ties the movie together"!

Sorry, stupid, stupid creationists. First of all, Hitler said many times that he was doing God's work, so if anything, you'd have to blame Christianity more, since he never explicitly mentioned anything about evolution (the idea of a "master race" actually goes AGAINST evolution). Secondly, whether or not person X misused evolution to an end has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that evolution is, well, a fact. See the following pages:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lyi...Richard-Dawkins

www.notjustatheory.com

As much as I don't want to, I have to defend Christianity here. A lot has been written on religion and the Third Reich. The Nazis weren't atheists, but they weren't Christians either. The closest to the truth would be to call them neo-pagans (with no relationship to modern paganism).

Hitler believed in Lamarckian evolution. You are right-his ideas run counter to Darwinian evolution.

Stalin was a Lysenkoist, so Expelled's other claim fails. As far as linking communism itself to evolution, The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848-11 years before On the Origin of Species.

[Guest Guest]

As much as I don't want to, I have to defend Christianity here. A lot has been written on religion and the Third Reich. The Nazis weren't atheists, but they weren't Christians either. The closest to the truth would be to call them neo-pagans (with no relationship to modern paganism).

I never blamed Christianity for Nazism. I said that, USING THE FAULTY LOGIC of guilt by association, Christianity would deserve greater fault than evolution. Neither comparison is fair, as lunatics will use whatever they can and twist it to their ends. I was just pointing out that even IF that logic was sound, it would point to Christianity being more of a cause, not evolution.

[Guest 2smart4u]

As much as I don't want to, I have to defend Christianity here. A lot has been written on religion and the Third Reich. The Nazis weren't atheists, but they weren't Christians either. The closest to the truth would be to call them neo-pagans (with no relationship to modern paganism).

Hitler believed in Lamarckian evolution. You are right-his ideas run counter to Darwinian evolution.

Stalin was a Lysenkoist, so Expelled's other claim fails. As far as linking communism itself to evolution, The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848-11 years before On the Origin of Species.

Where would you be without Ask.com ?

[Guest *Autonomous*]

Where would you be without Ask.com ?

Care to guess what my major was?

I might suggest that you start using Ask.com.

[Bryan]

As much as I don't want to, I have to defend Christianity here. A lot has been written on religion and the Third Reich. The Nazis weren't atheists, but they weren't Christians either. The closest to the truth would be to call them neo-pagans (with no relationship to modern paganism).

Hitler believed in Lamarckian evolution. You are right-his ideas run counter to Darwinian evolution.

Darwin himself had a Lamarckian streak, as he believed that acquired culture (for example) was heritable.

Interestingly, Darwin believed in the "inherited effects of the increased use of parts"—a very "Larmarckian" view. Lamarck argued for the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Darwin felt that this was key to explain giraffe evolution; otherwise there is no guarantee that longer features in one generation will have an effect on subsequent ones. But this view of the inheritance of acquired characteristics is rejected by mainstream Darwinists today.

http://www.natureinstitute.org/pub/ic/ic10/giraffe.htm

Darwin has received a form of scientific sainthood--he is often reinterpreted in terms of modern neo-Darwinism rather than in terms of his own beliefs and writings.

Stalin was a Lysenkoist, so Expelled's other claim fails. As far as linking communism itself to evolution, The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848-11 years before On the Origin of Species.

Evolution was all the rage prior to Darwin publishing "Origin." But it's fair to say that Marx was not specifically influenced by Darwinism as such prior to Darwin publishing.

Good post, though. More good than bad on balance.

[Guest Truthteller]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=61134

[Guest Real truthteller]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=61134

"On March 20, two Darwinian defenders, who accepted payment to talk like buffoons on the film, tried to bust into a private screening in Minnesota."

Proven to be a total lie. PZ Myers signed up for the screening the same way everyone else did, through the website. And he signed up one guest (Dawkins), in the same way everyone else signed up guests for the screening. In the process of signing up for the screening, it doesn't ask for names for guests, so Dawkins's name wasn't on the list, same as all other guests.

Good job defending liars that even Fox News has slammed. Welcome to a new low.

"Darwinism is a specific evolutionary theory that excludes everything but material processes in the design of all life forms. No Intelligent Design allowed."

It would be allowed if there was any evidence. Let us know when you get some. Arguments of personal ignorance won't count--solid evidence only.

"Not only is Darwinism foundational to atheism"

Wrong. And what is "Darwinism?" The Theory of Evolution isn't like a gospel from Darwin--unlike creationist doctrine, evolution has been revised a lot over the past 150 years.

"it is foundational to eugenics"

Eugenics runs DIRECTLY contrary to evolution, liar. Also, eugenics has been around for CENTURIES before Darwin published the Origin of Species.

""Hitler said genocide of Jews was doing good, cleansing the world of 'useless eaters' and strengthening formation of an 'Aryan' race of super-humans," said Mathis."

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited." --Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922

Hitler never mentioned Darwin, and the association between eugenics and evolution is a complete fabrication. However, he explicitly identifies himself as a Christian many times, even in just this one excerpt. If guilt by association is the game you're going to play, there's your culprit.

[Guest Guest]

Like him or not, Richard Dawkins is brilliant, and knows evolutionary theory cold. P. Z. Myers can be a crank, but he's smart as a whip.

Stein's so-called movie and the apologists for ID never stop. They think they make things true by making them up and spitting them out. And every time the matter seems settled, they make up new stuff and peddle that.

Evolution happened. It is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Let's move on.

[Guest *Autonomous*]

Darwin himself had a Lamarckian streak, as he believed that acquired culture (for example) was heritable.

Interestingly, Darwin believed in the "inherited effects of the increased use of parts"—a very "Larmarckian" view. Lamarck argued for the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Darwin felt that this was key to explain giraffe evolution; otherwise there is no guarantee that longer features in one generation will have an effect on subsequent ones. But this view of the inheritance of acquired characteristics is rejected by mainstream Darwinists today.

http://www.natureinstitute.org/pub/ic/ic10/giraffe.htm

Darwin has received a form of scientific sainthood--he is often reinterpreted in terms of modern neo-Darwinism rather than in terms of his own beliefs and writings.

Here's the thing-before the discovery of DNA decades later, no one really knew for sure how characteristics were inherited.

As far as sainthood-Evolutionary scientists are well aware that Darwin was wrong about several things. Since Evolution is not Revealed Truth, it is no big deal.

Evolution was all the rage prior to Darwin publishing "Origin." But it's fair to say that Marx was not specifically influenced by Darwinism as such prior to Darwin publishing.

Good post, though. More good than bad on balance.

The lineage of Communism is pretty clear-it goes back further than evolution, coming out of the utopian ideals of some of the Humanist philosophers.

[Bryan]

Here's the thing-before the discovery of DNA decades later, no one really knew for sure how characteristics were inherited.

Right, but obviously the point is that saying that diabolical leader X was Lamarckian therefore not Darwinian is a non sequitur.

As far as sainthood-Evolutionary scientists are well aware that Darwin was wrong about several things. Since Evolution is not Revealed Truth, it is no big deal.

I think you'd find that knowledge of Darwin's beliefs varies widely among evolutionary scientists. Some probably have an excellent grasp of the history of the theory (including Darrwin's beliefs). A few probably have appallingly poor knowledge. Most fall somewhere in the middle, and many probably do not know that Darwin held onto some Lamarkian tendencies.

The lineage of Communism is pretty clear-it goes back further than evolution, coming out of the utopian ideals of some of the Humanist philosophers.

You're equivocating, though I have no doubt that you did so accidentally. Marxism is not particularly akin to shared property utopianism. The key to Marxism was its dialectic approach to history, consisting of a deterministic expectation that society would develop ("evolve," if you like) in a particular deterministic manner. And that's not even counting its antipathy toward religion.

Marxism was very much a product of its time, which sought to understand society in terms of evolutionary changes.

Marx believed that society constantly changes as a result of class conflicts within the society. He viewed this development as a result of exploitation, inequality of wealth and power, and class struggle. The central idea in Marx’s evolutionary theory is materialism. He believed that the system of producing material goods determines other aspects of society, such as social custom, political system, spirituality, and ideology. In other words, Marx gave priority to material conditions over human thinking regarding the evolution of society.

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/cultural/anthropology/Marx.html

Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, defined communism. In the Communist Manifesto, which they wrote and published themselves in London in 1848, Marx and Engels portrayed the natural evolution of a communist utopia from capitalism. This revolutionary theory added fuel to the social struggles that characterized Europe during the latter half of the 19th century.

http://virtualschool.edu/mon/Economics/Marx.html

Marx adopted Hegel’s notions of evolution through history, and the idea of the dialectic. Marx saw himself as furthering these notions, by separating them from Hegel’s idealism. In an effort to be more empirically based, Marx replaced Absolute spirit with human material desire, and reinterpreted Hegel’s dialectic. "The way things are" became a given thesis, "the conflict," became it’s antithesis, and "resolution," became a synthesis of both. The epochs which Hegel supposed to be stages of consciousness in Absolute mind become for Marx economically based stages of evolution in human society.

http://filer.case.edu/ngb2/Pages/Impor_Phil_Notes.html