WHERE LIMBAUGHISM LEADS

TIME Magazine decided to interview a British political journalist on the importance of the work of Charles Darwin. This is what he said at the end:

All things considered, do you believe Darwin was a great luminary in the path of human progress?
What has the theory of evolution done for the practical benefit of humanity? It's helped our understanding of ourselves, yet compared to, say, the discovery of penicillin or the invention of the World Wide Web, I wonder why Darwin occupies this position at the pinnacle of esteem. I can only imagine he has been put there by a vast public relations exercise.

This article seems to be another case of pandering to the Fundies. Why didn't TIME interview an historian of science instead or at least someone conversant with the tremendous effect Darwin's ideas have had on biology and medicine? The last sentence is something that Limbaugh or Beck could have said.