There is great doubt about the obsessive teleology that many use in the name of Darwin that he theory does not justify.
"What Darwin Got Wrong: is a great book that Darwin would probably have approved of, since Darwinism has been used as a vehicle to replace creationism by some who over cook the pudding of natural selection and pose evolution as a causal agent when in fact it is a EFFECT, not a cause.
I'd recommend it to anyone who finds many nature programmes tend to interpret Darwin wrongly.

[en.wikipedia.org]

There is no detail here.
It might be a point about nuance, rather then any serious doubts.

Troubling to me. There seems to be a huge amount of the end justifies the means thinking in their camp.
I was privy to a situation which was telling about that thought process, yet would have been funny if it weren't so sad
The activity involved a group of men who were trying to use Zen like techniques to overcome some of their issues. During their meetings,they used meditation and some chants to "clear their minds, whatever.
One of these guys discussed this with a x-tian woman I know, and later she bragged to me (how I came to be aware, btw) that she'd coached him in a x-tian prayer, spoken in Hebrew, he'd gotten them to use it, in place of the zen ones.
I was speechless over the duplicity, the stupidity of such a charade. I mean, wouldn't "omnipotent gawd" know their intent, regardless of their words? And this from a person who was otherwise silent, if she couldn't be honest!

The first clue is your source...it's a not so cleverly designed creationist faux-science site...for me, nothing is worthy contemplation beyond religious bs...

Breaking their own Commandments to vilify facts, such are the morals of the Theists.

wasn't this the Oregon Petition?

It is the kind of duplicity I would expect from extreme religious "true believers and from the political right. They seem to think that their dogma is so important that it entitles them to exercise dishonesty.

From what I can find, quite a few of the names are the result of deceit and being mislead. Apparently many other names have questionable or nonexistent credentials. That's probably why you are only just hearing about it now. It was too phony to get any real traction.

Hmm. Five hundred they say. I doubt many of them are biologists. Check this out from ten years ago: