We at least agree that the only correct answer to most of these questions is "I don't know". :)
But I don't think you're being evenhanded in your treatment of the ToE as opposed to other ideas. Remember, we started out discussing your statement that we should beware of ideas that lead to evil. I can see Stalin accomplishing his evil without the aid of Darwinism (in fact, I think he did so), but I can't see Jim Jones committing his evil deeds without the aid of organized religion (perverted though his version was).
Assuming that the book portrayal is accurate (rather than just a PR ploy to demonstrate that Stalin was a good lil communist back before communism was cool), at most it has shown that Stalin used Darwin to justify his atheism; it hasn't shown that Darwin caused (or led to, or whatever) that atheism, much less his evil SOB behavior. So you still have that chicken-or-the-egg problem.
FWIW, I agree it's at least theoretically possible that Stalin could have been a good person had he not been exposed to Darwin. I regard it as extremely unlikely, mind you, but possible. I don't think that everyone who does evil is without the capacity to do good.
But if the positive exposure to Christianity of Jim Jones (who surely had to be exposed to it so as to pervert it) didn't turn him into a good person, how can you reasonably assume that the absence of exposure to Darwin (who makes no moral pronouncements at all) could have resulted in a good Stalin?
I can see Stalin accomplishing his evil without the aid of Darwinism (in fact, I think he did so), I honestly don't. But I understand that is mostly opinion.
but I can't see Jim Jones committing his evil deeds without the aid of organized religion (perverted though his version was).
I think Jones -- or Charles Mansen who could also illustrate your point -- would have used whatever means at his disposal to control his followers.
But if the positive exposure to Christianity of Jim Jones (who surely had to be exposed to it so as to pervert it) didn't turn him into a good person, how can you reasonably assume that the absence of exposure to Darwin (who makes no moral pronouncements at all) could have resulted in a good Stalin?
A very good point.
Remember, my opinion is primarily formed by the report concerning that book -- which specifically said Stalin gave up his religion due to Darwin -- and other reports which buttress that claim albeit less specifically.
If Stalin had a JudeoChristian value system that he gave up due to a belief that Darwin showed that God didn't exist, then it's logical to believe he would have kept it if he had never been exposed to Darwin.
It isn't logical to believe that Jones would give up a Christian value system because he read the Bible.
Maybe Jones was born bad, but Stalin wasn't.