Non sequitur comparison. It's not guilt by association when those items were championed by mainstream macroevolution apologists for years as "scientific proof" of their theory.
To make the analogy work, you'd have to say "religious people are trying to prove the validity of their moral doctrine by using the deviance of Catholic pedaphiles." Which is of course not the case.
Certainly you can present a hoax that was at one time touted as "proof" of the theory (even though theories are never proven) by mainstream science.