Not if you go by best-known Darwinist, Richard Dawkins:
Note the importance of evidence for reaching Darwinian conclusions. “important as the evidence is, in this article I want to explore the possibility of developing a different kind of argument. I suspect that it may be possible to show that, regardless of evidence, Darwinian natural selection is the only force we know that could, in principle, do the job of explaining the existence of organized and adaptive complexity.” [Daw82] “Darwinism is the only known theory that is in principle capable of explaining certain aspects of life… even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory.” [Daw96Bp287-88] “The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. Even if the evidence did not favour it, it would still be the best theory available.” [Daw96BP317]
– from Donald E. Johnson’s Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability LITE: A Call to Scientific Integrity, p. 87-88.
The first statement, [Daw82], is from a 1982 piece in New Scientist, whose express purpose is to dismiss Lamarckian evolution: “The necessity of Darwinism: There is no evidence for Lamarckian inheritance, but even without evidence we can be reasonably sure that Lamarckian inheritance just won’t do.”
Evidence for Lamarckian evolution (horizontal gene transfer) is now commonly noted. Does that affect the necessity of Darwinism? Does it mean that Darwinism must now be evaluated on evidence? What about the right to offer evidence-based critiques of Darwinism in science classes?