Smith believed that the gov't had a role in enforcing laws, and creating a stable & predictable society. There's not really an analogy to this in evolution, which doesn't require man-made laws to thrive. Perhaps the closet analogy Smith made is in our natural propensity to trade; although I think that had Smith been more of a biologist, he would've seen the natural fruits of division of labor in bee hives and ant colonies in addition to in human endeavors.

Certainly you miss something when compare 2 of the most influential writers in Western history on the basis on one being "right" and the other being "wrong".

Adam Smith mentions the invisible hand once in the Wealth of Nations, somewhere in the middle. Summarizing Smith's work as simply "the invisible hand" is like summarizing Darwin as "evolution". Similar ideas had been proposed before, particularly in the case Darwin, but what made both of the authors so influential is that they proposed underlying mechanisms behind their theses. It's not just "evolution", it's evolution by means of natural selection, by adaptation, speciation, by means of sexual selection, etc. Likewise underlying Smith's "the invisible hand" was the means of increasing wealth through the division of labor, a separation of inherent value from price, an analysis of different types of value, comparisons of different types of economies (eg, coastal vs landlocked towns; agriculture vs. manufactured goods), a limited but necessary role of gov't, & the benefits of self-interest. "evolution" or "the invisible hand" may be the takeaway message, but it's impossible to talk intelligently about those ideas without reference to the underlying mechanisms, just as it's impossible to talk intelligently about any thesis without considering whether there is evidence to support it.

With regard to the current gov't bailouts, corporations will say anything to stay afloat. One day Microsoft is pro-capitalism, the next day they're filing an anti-trust case against their competitors. Even Smith warned of this, when he said not to confuse his message with the words of corrupt ship traders who supported a form of protectionist mercantilism in order to stay afloat at the harm of everyone else. But that's just common sense. What's best for one company or person isn't always best for everyone. I'd love to get lots of money from the gov't as well, & spin my request as a "capitalism plus the needs of kerrjac". I mean, GM is a multi-billion corporation that is dying a painful death while Adam Smith was a hugely influential academic. I wouldn't get their messages confused.

The idea of evolution had been floating around before Darwin. Lamarck had proposed his own version of it before Darwin, and Charles Lyell very strongly hinted at it in his work on rock formations. But Darwin ended up getting the credit - and rightly so - because of his discussion of the mechanisms by which it took place. Creationists often attack "evolution", but how often do they rail about evolution by means of natural selection, sexual selection, speciation, etc? I'd argue that simply the idea of "evolution" is relatively hollow & useless without reference to Darwin's arguments about the means by which it takes place.