If evidence is everything then Darwin's theory of natural selection is fundamentally flawed, to the extent that it makes ontological claims without reference to ontological evidence (which is a virtual impossibility).
The assumptions which underpin Darwin's theories of evolution are undermined by their inability to answer the simple question which is -

"why should life perpetuate itself?"

rubbish
Evolutionary theory dosent have to nor does it attempt to answer "why should life perpetuate itself?"

Evolution is a scientific theory not a philosophical theory.

In fact, Bulkman, ther is an answer to the question why does life perpectuate itself.. If it did not perpeptuate itself we would not be her to ask why life should perpetuate itself.. species that stop reproducing die out and are later found as imprints on rocks. Those that struggle to reproduce themselves may end up writing blogs...

I thought it was generally accepted that genes are selfish.
Another key difference between Marx, Freud and Darwin was that Darwin in his book tries to disprove his theory with various arguments and then comes to the conclusion that as he cannot disprove it you may as well accept it as the simplest explanation. Accordingly Darwin is a scientist. Marx and Freud take the opposite tack and try to prove their theories.
Both were pseudo-scientists.

The assumptions which underpin Darwin's theories of evolution are strengthened by their ability to answer the question

"why should life perpetuate itself?"

That is the purpose of life "to survive" as a live collection of cells, chemicals and soul.

Darwin's approach is certainly disliked by those who's sense of purpose in life revolves around theories not substantive, not capable of being tested.

This is clear in political or social debates.

Where terms "race", "racial" or "ethnic" regularly used - abused, with racial labels presented as substantive arguments for why people should be, need be, treated differently.

Defending racism as a label ignored is scientific evidence of the few scientific differences that actually exist between humans, particularly where attempted were measures of differences by race.

Is NOT acceptable, even in Australia, to reject arguments dependent upon racial labels.

Mark,
This article seems to be in search of a purpose.
The criticism you make of Marx could be made of every philosopher.

Both Freud and Marx were important ultimately because they started something new not that they were necessarily correct.

Everyone with an opinion will defend it those that have careers built on them will fight harder...human nature. Is as I suspect you are trying to push a line for capitalism. I would have to ask whose version?

I fairly point out that neither capitalism as it’s practiced nor economics has got a good track record for universal predictability. This is a major plank of being a science and therefore fails your evidence test too.