The Soviet Union is often used as an example of an "evolutionist regime". It is however clear that those making the claim have never done any research or know even the basics of the development of biology within the USSR.
Under Stalin, similar to the Bush regime today science was prodded and pulled around to suit an ideology; 'in one country' for Stalin and the 'new American century' for Bush. And yes this is to an extent happening in the USA today, especially when it comes to global warming or stem cell research.
In the USSR the key science that was messed around with was biology. The "official" biology between 1948 and 1965 wasn't our evolution; it was Lamarckism, this particular brand being spearheaded by Trofim Denisovich Lysenko, often referred to as Lysenkoism. Scientists who refused to accept this hypothesis were removed from their positions.
Lamarckism was an evolutionary hypothesis put forward by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck a French naturalist, in fact one of the first to pin down the origin of life was due to natural reasons (even if not entirely material), he lived between 1744 and 1829.
There were two basic laws Lamarck put forward:
In every animal which has not passed the limit of its development, a more frequent and continuous use of any organ gradually strengthens, develops and enlarges that organ, and gives it a power proportional to the length of time it has been so used; while the permanent disuse of any organ imperceptibly weakens and deteriorates it, and progressively diminishes its functional capacity, until it finally disappears.
All the acquisitions or losses wrought by nature on individuals, through the influence of the environment in which their race has long been placed, and hence through the influence of the predominant use or permanent disuse of any organ; all these are preserved by reproduction to the new individuals which arise, provided that the acquired modifications are common to both sexes, or at least to the individuals which produce the young.
Essentially his driving force for evolution wasn't natural selection as our present evolutionary theory put more of an idealist process; in that by thought and actions from those thoughts characteristics could change.
Using giraffes for example, Lamarckism would argue that because of the giraffe (or the ancestor of the giraffe) was trying to reach leaves high up in trees, the action and thought of them stretching their necks is actually what gave their offspring longer necks.
Natural selection however argues that giraffes with shorter necks simply died and were less likely to pass on their genes.
So in some ways it's a pretty solid idea for a pre-Darwin time. He was one of the key naturalists who came up with a natural solution to what had previously been solely the realm of a god.
What is however strange is why so called materialists 150 years later would accept this theory and make it "official". Marx, Engels, Lenin virtually every socialist accepted Darwinism as the most likely reason for the origin of species which as 98% of scientists in the world today and for the last hundred years or so agreed was rock solid. The bureaucracy’s break with their roots and the scientific community showed the lack of socialism and real cancer at the heart of the USSR.
Stalin was duped into an idea comparable to Intelligent Design today, the idealism; idealism being the universe is controlled by thought and not material processes at the heart of Lamarckism, it's the same sort of idealism in Intelligent Design. Natural selection can't do that - so it must of been thought about and made by actions of either the creature itself or a greater power.
It wasn't until 1965 that scientists were able to get Lamarckism thrown out. The Soviet genetics program never fully recovered because an entire generation had their ideas of biology flipped around and all wrong.
We see something similar in America today, in fact its worse because America has had to endure many generations falling victim to creationist nonsense. In America, evolution was actually quite rarely mentioned until the early 1960s - when the US government suddenly realised they were scientifically and technological behind the USSR, and the only way to catch up was to teach the kids some actual science.
In the USSR creationism, or non-scientific theories were never mentioned in school. So even though in biology the official science was a scientific theory which had been proven wrong - it was still science; and the scientific method they were being educated with and really only impacted the field of genetics.
In the US even going on Kent Hovinds' graphs, the word evolution in American textbooks increased 10 fold from 1955 to 1965. It's been in steady decline since however.
Creationism has been organised in attacking evolution and science in the US for a hundred years or so now. They were really squashed against the side when the USSR began racing ahead, but now they're creeping back. And this is the real problem.
We see a clear pattern here. When science is not taught, the whole country falls behind. When science and the method of science is being taught things race ahead.
When you put non-science in science class in schools you will damage that society. Evolution is scientific fact and it should be the sole theory put forward to explain the origin of species on Earth in schools and updated if and when scientists have decided it needs updating.
Bush coming out and saying you should teach both creationism and evolution is garbage, creationism in any of its forms is garbage, it doesn't get you anything. It'll just confuse everyone and hold back the society. It's like saying you should teach astrology to engineers who have to design spacecraft to go to Mars. It's like saying you should teach alchemy instead of chemistry, or phrenology instead of neurology. You teach kids non-science and you'll doom your society to backwardness.
Intelligent Design is NOT science and it does not belong in school, there's only one scientific theory that explains the origin of species and that's Darwinism and that should be the sole theory taught.