If that were true would calling it a religion make it a negative thing?
If Darwinism claimed to be a religion, then Darwinists would have a perfect right to worship evolution, as long as they kept the basic laws and moral prescripts of society. By which I mean, for instance, that it wouldn't license them to kill off weaker people in the name of advancing the species. But they could certainly believe that such a process naturally occurs.
However, the one note you keep hearing on these threads is that Darwin is science and anything opposed to Darwin is religion or superstition. I called that kind of attitude "religious," because although it pretends otherwise it really doesn't permit anyone to examine the evidence. Perhaps a better name for it would be superstition, since Darwinism strikes me as a particularly credulous and irrational sort of religion.
So, now we have judges proclaiming from their judicial thrones that Darwin must be taught in all the public schools, but that no other theory, no argument that questions Darwin, no competing hypotheses, will be permitted. Our children must be protected from hearing anything at all but all Darwin all the time.
Frankly, that's not the kind of position that will have much staying power, once people start to really look at it.