Darwinism and popular culture: So we really ARE allowed to critique the little god now?

Apparently, the charges in my article in Touchstone - about the little god Darwin - have been noticed by at least one person.

THE DARWIN MOVIE’S NOT SELLING, but John Scalzi doubts those evil Creationmongers are a part of the reason:

How about this: The movie is not selling because it is not believed ... Huh? Maybe the charge is not believable?

People now generally guess that Darwin was a materialist atheist long before his daughter died?

Fact: In North America, you cannot legally line up people at gun point and force them to watch some propaganda film about Darwin - or about anything - and threaten to shoot them if they say they do not believe it. If that is not the law where you live, please hold a revolution now.*

*As a traditional Canadian, I am not a fan of revolutions in general. We prefer peaceful transitions. But we must all be realists. In Canada, nature is our vast antagonist, not man. Check a map But in some places maybe people need a revolution, to get the point across.

While I am here, one of the most significant books published this year, because it - potentially - rids us of much Darwin nonsense, endlessly iterated in textbooks, teacher’s manuals and popular films, is Michael Flannery's republishing, with a useful introduction, of Alfred Russel Wallace’s Theory Of Intelligent Evolution . We would be vastly better off if Wallace, rather than Darwin, had been the main theorist. For example, we would never had dealt with awful eugenics movement and the completely ridiculous evolutionary psychology movement. Wallace was far wiser than his co-theorist, Darwin, about the stuff that really mattered.