I am a college student. I don't know what anyone thought, but I am not a philosophy, theology, or any other soft-science major- my fun is found in the biomedical/animal science double major. Yay for chemistry, biology, and examining dead things! If you want all science and like animals, these are the majors for you.
I take classes like biological chemistry, organic chemistry, Biology, Microbiology, biochemistry, etc etc etc. What is humorous is that contrary to the popular belief that all scientists= athiests, is that the more I learn, the harder I find it possible to deny the exsistance of God. It is all simply amazing- I wouldn't know how to describe it.
Now, I have learned all about Darwin and his theories in my intro classes. I love those little Darwin bumper decals because they make me laugh. Every so often I see them, usually with other bumperstickers promoting things like gay marriage, or condemning the goverment. These people, in effect, are usually saying "We all come from some primordial sludge (well, currently the prevailing theory seems to be blacksmokers, but I digress); I am enlightened enough to understand this, while you christian people hang onto some misbegotton but comforting notion of a fuzzy-happy god who helps you to deal with the reality of death." I have spoken (to? with? I don't think they listened) more than a few of these people-not at A&M, but other 4-yr universities which shall remain nameless.
I would think that, were something to be stuck to my car, I would know about it. If a statement about evolution and godless-ness while making fun of the Christians was to be made, I might use the word "evolution" in a fish, but certainly NOT the name of Darwin, who was very much a theist (although he does seem dualistic at times). Most people hear about his Origin of the Species, but few have read it. Here are two parts that very much come to mind when I see those things:
It is scarcely possible to avoid comparing the eye to a telescope. We know that this instrument has been perfected by the long-continued efforts of the highest human intellects; and we naturally infer that the eye has been formed by a somewhat analogous process. But may not this inference be presumptuous? Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?[...] Further we must suppose that there is a power always intently watching each slight accidental alteration in the transparent layers; and carefully selecting each alteration which, under varied circumstances, may in any way, or in any degree, tend to produce a distincter image. We must suppose each new state of the instrument to be multiplied by the million; and each to be preserved till a better be produced, and then the old ones to be destroyed. In living bodies, variation will cause the slight alterations, generation will multiply them almost infinitely, and natural selection will pick out with unerring skill each improvement. Let this process go on for millions on millions of years; and during each year on millions of individuals of many kinds; and may we not believe that a living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior to one of glass, as the works of the Creator are to those of man?