No, not just someone but the one who "started it all".
VadeRetro nailed it pretty good in this post on why this strategy is so popular among creationists (and some ID'ers as well):
We can number you among those who think science is argued the way religion is argued. That is, the works of the founder are canonical and trump all subsequent scholarship. Furthermore, if any personal dirt on the founder exists then all the works of the founder are discredited.Or in other words: To a child with a hammer...
Science is not a matter of revealed word. Darwin was only the first Darwinist. He died in 1881 and is quite out of date. It doesn't matter now if you can find evidence that he barbequeued and ate human babies, or even that he married his first cousin. It's not about that.
Evolution isn't true because Darwin is a famous scientist. Darwin is a famous scientist because evolution proved true.
You don't even know how people reason these kind of questions. That's not encouraging.