That's odd: I'm frequently told that the great numbers of scientists who believe in evolution is some great important testament to its veracity. Hmm... nevermind, my mistake.
Anyway, as I said, the analogy does not in and of itself prove anything as some sort of logical argument, and that's not how it was presented. You can either view a mass belief system from the point of view of the people believing it, and analyze the evidence for and against, or you can step back and view it from a sort of mass psychological or sociological point of view.
Many people look at "religionists" using the latter lens. Similarly, you look at the historical obsession with Marxism and Freudianism either way: on the one hand you can ask yourself, what was the enormous evidence that led so many highly educated, intelligent, rational people to believe so fervently and dogmatically in such a pile of horse-cr@p? On the other hand, you can ask what sociological/psychological factors were in play that brought this about?
You see, I don't believe it was some massive weight of evidence that led all these people to believe in Marxism and Freudianism. I believe it was more presuppositional than evidential. Of course, the adherents would plead to the contrary until they were blue in the face. As have you.
And given the enormous historical crossover between belief in Marxism, Freudianism, and Darwinism, it behoves the curious traveler to ponder, if only fleetingly, if perhaps the latter belief system will follow the same trajectory as the former two.
And you'd be right. But that is not the case for evolutionary biology, which has been built upon, and validated by, an overwhelming amount of evidence, along multiple independently cross-confirming lines.