This post started off badly. You've answered your initial question in what follows. And then Darwin was much more interested in science than Christianity, so that's a bit of a red herring.
It improves rapidly thereafter:
1, you're arguing for diversity, to enable adaptability
2, you're invoking the old chestnut of humans' differentia specifica resulting from some kind of rational/linguistic ability -- which is difficult to argue against but, at the same time, equally difficult to identify and precisely capture
3, you're arguing that there's a counter-1, the socially consevative. Beyond their dearth of ambition, their rampant insularity, their insistence that things were always thus and our way is the only way, they tend not to have done very well at school (or have been thwarted by not being exposed to further/higher education) and are blissfully unaware that this 'eternal' 'only way' is in fact a recent and highly contingent configuration that is also highly precarious -- and it's this last point that really gets them.
It's unusual for me to receive a long reply and not be able to work out whether the assessment is that my post started out badly and improved, or started out badly and got worse

