OK, how about this? Nazism was based on the concept of a master race and the belief that culture degenerates when distict races intermix. It was dependent on the acceptance that the Aryan race, as decending from the Nordic warrior peoples, was the personification of all that was pure and holy among the races. The purity of the race was paramount, and the idea that it or another race might evolve into something better or higher was discounted. I don't think Darwin ever went down that road. And I doubt that Hitler would sign on to Darwin's ideas that he evolved from a lower species or that intermixing might produce a stronger, more survivable hybrid. After all, purity of the race was paramount, protection of the culture was everything. In the end Nazism is more dependent on the works of men like Arthur de Gobineau and Houston Chamberlain and Frederich Nietzsche, men who based none of their writings on Darwin, than on Darwin himself. Had Darwin never existed, Hitler most likely still would have, all other things being equal. But for Kennedy it's not about fact or science. It's easier to slander Darwin by linking him to Hitler than it is to provide evidence of ID that refutes his findings. It's completely understandable why he took this route instead.
"It's easier to slander Darwin by linking him to Hitler..."
Excellent analysis.
If Darwin had not existed, Wallace would have published, and MAYBE have achieved the same prominence, with much the same theory. But Darwin did exist and he was made a symbol of a rising scientism and a class of lay scientists who replaced the clerical amateurs like thge Bishop of Oxford in the chairs of the scientific socities. The scientist Darwin--his work has been superceded, But the symbol "Darwin" remains as the counterpart of the "Bible." and more as a ratification of German philosophy than of biology. As for Darwin the man, he was perfect for the role, since he was quite unphilosophical and conventional, and was content to let more articulate men like Huxley "puff his reputation.