It is obvious that the Darwinists (or neo-Darwinists) gain lots of rhetorical points against non-Darwinian evolution theories from the so-called "evolution versus creation debate". The massive amount of nonsensical arguments against (Darwinian) evolution used by the so-called "intelligent design movement" creates a widespread stereotype of anti-Darwinian arguments being silly. The so-called "intelligent design movement"'s usage of the phrase "there are multiple theories of evolution" in reference to their distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" creates a stereotype that any pointing out of differences between different theories of evolution (e.g. random versus adaptive mutations, or adaptation versus internally driven change) should somehow be covert creationism, which it in fact is not.
There is also the fact that lots of so-called "sceptic" sites, such as Rational Wiki, often use parodies of what they refer to as "crank" or "crackpot" ideas (they even have entire articles made up of nothing but parody, with titles beginning with FUN:). This makes it likely that some of them claim to seriously believe in the theories they consider to be bullshit. There are, in fact, even people who claim to be honestly believing Pastafarians! So it is likely that so-called "intelligent design advocates" such as Duane Gish, Ray Comfort, Andrew Schafley, Samuel Behe, William Dembski, and so on, are in fact covert Darwinists making as much silly noise as they can to denigrate all anti-Darwinism by association fallacy.
This theory explains why, despite polls showing a massive support for "intelligent design" in the United States, U.S. schools still promote evolution (the neo-Darwinian form thereof) and do not teach other theories, at the same time as the United States is supposed to be a democracy, i.e. majority rule. Of course it is plausible that democracy is simply an illusion, but it is also likely that Darwinists claiming to promote "intelligent design" plays a role too, especially when it comes to polls directed towards the top layers of society, i.e. those with undeniable power. Those polls also show a massive support for "intelligent design", and yet evolution (in its neo-Darwinian form) holds sway in the schools. This have not changed despite many years of massive "intelligent design" support in polls on all leves of society, including the top layers. Something really obscure is going on here.
Perhaps the resistance against non-Darwinian evolution is a way to cover up the chromosome conspiracy.
For a similar academic conspiracy not specifically evolution-related, see TimeCube as a sceptic sock puppet.