You lie blatantly when you say Stalin embraced Darwinism. If you taught Darwinian evolution in Stalin's USSR you were sent to Siberia and/or executed.
That is the truth. Your idea that anybody who accepts a scientific theory is a moral relativist is as ludicrous as your previous idiotic assumption that anybody who accepts a scientific theory is an atheist.
Do you know that the current Pope says of evolution that “there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being and such”?
Do you think the Pope is a moral relativist?
Darwinism appeals to a lot of bad men:
“Making a monkey out of Darwin”
Excerpt
That Darwinism has proven “disastrous theory” is indisputable.
“Karl Marx loved Darwinism,” writes Windchy. “To him, survival of the fittest as the source of progress justified violence in bringing about social and political change, in other words, the revolution.”
“Darwin suits my purpose,” Marx wrote.
Darwin suited Adolf Hitler’s purposes, too.
“Although born to a Catholic family, Hitler become a hard-eyed Darwinist who saw life as a constant struggle between the strong and the weak. His Darwinism was so extreme that he thought it would have been better for the world if the Muslims had won the eighth century battle of Tours, which stopped the Arabs’ advance into France. Had the Christians lost, (Hitler) reasoned, Germanic people would have acquired a more warlike creed and, because of their natural superiority, would have become the leaders of an Islamic empire.”
Charles Darwin also suited the purpose of the eugenicists and Herbert Spencer, who preached a survival-of-the-fittest social Darwinism to robber baron industrialists exploiting 19th-century immigrants.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=102589
Do you think the Pope is a moral relativist?"
I come late to the discussion and maybe I offer something already stated; however, as I am still reading through I post this now while fresh on the mind...
I would would suggest your question itself objectively points to a flawed premise you seem to embrace.
What exactly does the theory of evolution have to do with morality? Further -what does science have to do with morality?
If not for the "ism" e.g. the philosophy based upon faith that extends from and is premised upon the scientific theory of evolution what is left but a scientific theory that should stand or fall based alone objectively on its own merits.
You seem to be more evolution priest than evolution scientist here on this subject. The secular materialistic humanistic moral relative philosophy stemming from evolution theory that you may claim you neither defend nor attack is what is being debated here.
If you are a scientist you have no horse in this race...