You forget that several fundamentalist groups continue to assert that we're not!
But that's another topic for another thread...
I was about to correct Staff's statement about Catholicism but it was corrected. The Catholic church teaches "creation" only in the sense that "God Created the Universe" but not that it opposes evolutionary theory to explain the origin of species, etc. Not Creationism
(Young Earth or some variant thereof). There was some debate recently over whether the RCC taught Intelligent Design instead. While this idea is certain believed by some prominent clergymen (a recent statement by that one cardinal sounds very much like ID), it's not the official teaching of the magisterium
Lath made a statement about polytheistic creeds never having a problem with evolutionary theory. And while I haven't heard anyone publically rail against evolutionary theory on religious terms and not use some strain of Christianity as the basis, I would argue that there are plenty of polytheistic creation stories, that if taken as literally as certain Christian groups take Genesis, they'd have the exact same problems.
And I really hate to say "literally" because it's so easily misinterpreted (nobody takes the entire Bible "literally" even those who claim to)... but I think you guys know what I mean. If people say they take creation out of the Bible you should really ask them "which creation story" since there are several variations. Most churches favor allegorical or other "non-literal" interpretations of of the creation accounts in the Hebrew Scriptures today. That doesn't mean they all accept Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism (which aren't or shouldn't be perjorative terms, they're just accurate statements of evolutionary theories), but still. This is literally one of those debates where there aren't just two sides (and no, it's not just three sides either, throwing in ID).
And despite my respect for many of Mr. Buchanan's other ideas, that opinion piece by him on evolution sounds like he really hasn't studied the issue much beyond the headlines. It's one thing to assert that Darwinism has "failed" in the court of public opinion, but to equate it to a political (rather than scientific) theory like Marxist-Leninism and thus assert its falsehood is a problematic analogy.
PS: Freud's mythmaking on religion is fun to read, but hardly provable anymore than certain feminist theories of a golden age of matriarchy. Makes for breathtaking political rhetoric, but nothing really substantial in evidence. He may be a favorite whipping boy though so that's all I'm going to say on him.