Donald Prothero's scathing review of "What Darwin Got Wrong" in the latest edition of eSkeptic reminds me of a pet peeve. It's double sided.
On one side, I find the creationist habit of referring to rational people who accept the fact of evolution by natural selection as "Darwinists" really annoying. They usually also trumpet any scientific discovery or hypothesis that contradicts something Darwin wrote or said, and of course really cream themselves over the racist bits in Origin of Species and Descent of Man. They seem to believe that evolution depends on Darwin being inerrant, which could not be further from the truth.
On the other side, I'm disappointed with people on the side of science who deify Darwin. Several of the biographies and biographical articles I've read about him treat the details of his life story with Gospel-like reverence, as if his relationship with his wife or his father or his university professors, or his grief over the death of his daughter, or his competition with Wallace has some bearing on the validity of his insights.
I greatly prefer this narrative -- Darwin was the most prominent and successful early proponent of evolution by natural selection, but because the fossil record was so thin and the principles of genetics had not yet been discovered at the time he wrote his famous books, some of his ideas were incomplete or wrong. The beauty and strength of science is that it builds on itself and self-corrects. Darwin pointed the way, and subsequent generations of scientists have filled in the gaps and corrected the errors in Darwin's thinking, and have taken the field of biology further than Darwin could have dreamed.