That I have to make this sort of confession of scientific orthodoxy is evidence that this debate is not a disinterested pursuit for truth, but an attempt at browbeating. This only makes me more sympathetic towards Sternberg's eccentric theories, though I don't even know what they are.
What I do have a problem with in Darwinism is the blatant effort to paper over Darwin's muddled, and sometimes downright evil, philosophical claims that too often accompany his better-formed scientific speculations.
Instead, he was a respectable Victorian gentlemen who loved his wife and and gave to his church. There is no way to get from,
Darwin's cousin, "respectable Victorian gentleman" Francis Galton, was the founder of the eugenics movement. Darwin himself latched on to the execrable Herbert Spencer's term "survival of the fittest." Karl Marx actually asked Charles Darwin if he could dedicate Das Kapital to him, and Darwin only refused because he knew Marx's patent atheism would upset his wife. An honorable intention, I suppose, but it shows how screwed up he was philosophically, not to mention theologically.
Darwin himself was the first Social Darwinist, as well, but I won't take the time to plug in my sources. Check out Edward T. Oakes' book review of the sensationalistically-titled scholarly history "From Darwin to Hitler" in an upcoming issue of First Things magazine.