Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands. Cults everywhere: Islam, the State, the cult of Gay and Queer, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, 'Science', Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion....a nice variety for the human-hater, amoral, anti-rationalist to choose from. It is so much fun mocking them isn't it ?
Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death
Darwin was no more a scientist than Al Gore is an expert on climatic epochs and the million-variable complexity named climate. Further it is clear that Darwin suffered mental issues. Was he insane and how would this impact his metaphysics, now called 'science' by his acolytes who believe that grass became the gardener ?
Other dialectical-materialists including Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Marx, Lenin et al were clearly mental incompetents. Was Darwin, whose dialectical-naturalist theories make a simple-minded claim that algae, through some impersonal, unknowable process, became the astronomer, also insane ? Considering the evidence presented by Bergman, a Canadian PhD and one-time cult-member of the Darwinian science-fiction club, it is likely that Charles Darwin, was a neurological mess [see here]. This psychopathy must have informed Darwin's philosophical work on evolution – and please note that metaphysics is not science. Evolution has about as much to do with science as a trace chemical 95% emitted by Gaia, has with weather. Evolutionary dogma is simply a set of beliefs, hopes, dreams and sadly, a vicious construct of anti-human drivel.
Was Darwin a scientist or just a good liar ? Bergman's evidence is compelling in convincing the reader of the latter.
Darwin stole most of his material of course from those who had previously offered up turtles to train-engineer theories, some preceding him by centuries. Even the ancient Greeks before and during the time of Aristotle, surmised that creatures could shape-shift and 'change'. From the early modern era, Bergman lists Erasmus Darwin, Buffon, Montesquieu, de Maillet, Diderot, Lamarck, Robert Chambers, Edward Blyth [a clergyman], Carl Vogt [1864 'Lectures on Man']; and Patrick Matthew as source material for Darwin's work. Plagiarism is what many call it. Matthew for instance developed the exact same ideas 28 years in advance of Darwin. His own writings are remarkably similar to what Darwin would later publish as 'his idea'. Darwin lifted from Matthew's theories, very long passages for his book 'Origins of the Species', without citation or acknowledgement.
Darwin also copied copiously from his supposed co-author, a 'scientist' named Wallace, and Wallace threatened to sue Darwin, claiming that most of Darwin's writings were in fact originally written and developed by Wallace previous to Darwin's own work on the origins of species  being published. Darwin's ideas were apparently far behind those of Wallace. In 1856 after reading Wallace's unpublished monograph which he had send to him, Darwin wrote that his own theory was late and 'threadbare' in comparison to Wallace's theory. Wallace spent some 30 years accusing Darwin of theft. In general, charges of plagiarism against Darwin were very common once his books came into print.
Why did Darwin get the credit for the scientific materialism or naturalism, in support of Atheism ? Darwin was rich, and Wallace et al for the most part were outsiders. Darwin was conveniently the secretary of the Geological Society, and Wallace and others who had developed evolutionary metaphysics, were simply not within the 'inner circle' of men who called themselves 'scientists' in mid-19th century England. Darwin was thus able to pilfer the ideas of others, sell it to his friends; and then demonize the sources. In fact Darwin and his group were first and foremost propagandists, and one aspect of their marketing campaign was the incessant vituperation directed at their critics and those from whom, they stole material. The cult of warming today, is simply aping the cult of Darwin from 150 years ago.
As Bergman writes:
“It is widely recognized that all of the major ideas on biological evolution Darwin discussed predated his published writings.....[quoting from an Oxford historian of science].....the core principles of evolution – struggle for survival, selection, heritability, adaptation, even the appearance of random changes to the hereditary makeup – were fairly common themes in Victorian botany and zoology.”
Bergman lists in a chapter all of the scientific mistakes by Darwin. It is quite a long list. Hundreds running into the thousands are identified. Darwin wrote that whales evolved from bears; negroes would simply 'disappear' [from evolutionary forces]; that sheep which suffered from disease were evidence of a 'new species'; and that rhinos were never killed by other beasts of prey. Darwin supported the discredited ideas of Lamarck [where striving can induce genetic changes]; proposed the tautology of natural selection without proof [you survive therefore you are the 'fittest' – rather an idiotic assessment]; geological uniformity [from Lyell which is another absurd fallacy]; and that there is a magic special little molecule which pushes evolution forward. No experimentation was ever conducted to support any aspect of his theory, by Darwin.
Darwin stole most of his ideas; never engaged in real scientific work; and even pasted fake photos into his books to prove that 'lower species' such as blacks or Fuegians [Patagonian Indians]; were linked to primates; or that people in distress had facial expressions akin to those of monkeys. This is science or science-fiction ? Darwin was typical of what is termed an atheopath, or those who suffer from the various pathologies related to atheist belief. Lying to confirm metaphysical beliefs and deny reality should make Darwin a laughingstock. Not a god.