About 10 years ago or so, there was a flap at the editorial board of the magagazine "Scientific American." One of the editors openly expressed a belief in God -- not literal creationism, mind you; just a belief in a Creator -- and he was summarily fired. So, yes; I believe that many scientists expess a firm, positive belief in Darwinism because (a) they know nothing about it, it doesn't affect their work one way or the other, and it sounds materialist-based and scientific (they are the opportunistic fellow-travelers); or (b) they fear losing their jobs, their research money, their prestige, etc. If medical schools can use belief in abortion as a litmust test for admitting students -- and some do -- then scientific organizations (magazines, academia, etc.) can use belief in the sacred cow of Darwinism as a litmus test (and, apparently, some -- perhaps many) do. "Science" has the same sort of politics going on inside its institutions as any other field.