Should we reject evolution because of Darwinian attitudes?

Read Rav Shternbuch on the theory of evolution, "Darwin's Theory Revisited," discussed in the comment section of Daas Torah and readable in this image. I admit not walking away impressed. It seems as though he regarded the theory as heresy and therefore should not and did not study it enough to give it proper consideration or to respond to it in a sophisticated and informed manner. For example, the author writes (summarizing Rav Shternbuch) "According to their understanding, people originally started as apes and slowly evolved into what we know as man." Later, he writes "Someone who lives like an animal views human beings as merely another life form and can conclude that their [sic] ancestors were chimpanzees."

However, Darwinian evolution is not that apes became man, or that man's ancestors were chimpanzees. Rather, it is that apes and men shared a common ancestor, which evolved into apes (and chimpanzees) and men respectively. This is a common misconception of those who have not studied evolution. And this is no throwaway mistake -- the entire article seems predicated on it. Thus, he writes that "Looking at history there appears to be a distinct pattern. First there was the Stone Age, and then the Bronze Age, and man continuously rose in his ability to make use of his knowledge to take care of his needs in the world... Scientists noted this pattern and concluded that the world must be in a state of upward progression..." He continues that we Jews meanwhile know that previous generations were on higher levels. This ascription of this view to scientists, besides echoing the famous airplane joke, is quite connected to the idea that the more evolved man evolved from the monkey, which was earlier in evolutionary development. Evolution is not a ladder, but a branching tree.

Meanwhile, while I have seen no evidence that scientists looked at Stone Age, Bronze Age, etc., to arrive at Darwinism, I do know that at Darwin's time there were two competing theories. Progressionism held that the species were developing in a way of progress, becoming "better" each time; non-progressionism held that they were not, and it was anti-progressionism which had the weight of evidence in its favor. The more religiously-inclined were progressionists. Scholars of the history of Darwin and Darwinism debate whether Darwin was a progressionist or an anti-progressionist.

However, Darwins theory, or especially modern evolutionary theory, is decidedlynon-progressionist. Both apes and man evolved from a common ancestor, where there were random mutations, and different things in the environment allowed (in different situations) different mutations to succeed. And at any rate, this is a strange means of attack. Rather than attack the merits of the theory, or whether it described and predicts the facts on the ground, it is an (erroneous) attack on the motivations of the scientists who developed the theory. This is not ad hominem, but it seems close. See also the arguments pro and con in the comment section at Daas Torah. I agree with Rabbi Gil Student who said, for other reasons, "I don't think it is kavod ha-Torah to publish articles like this."

Update: The following text should make it clear that Rav Moshe Shternbuch is arguing against Lamarck, rather than Darwin. Read this text and then read Rav Shternbuch's article again.