When evolution is not linked to philosophic and theological claims about fundamental causation it is just the description of the way that events are unfolding after their creation. Yet Darwinists do try to make that link in a sort of "evolutionism" that is opposed to creation. So they claim their hypotheses to be explanatory with respect to fundamental origins and thus evolutionists claim to be refuting natural theology, the philosophy of Aristotle, their own conception of Victorian or prissy Christianity, etc. Yet it was noted at quite early times in the intellectual history of Darwinism that the scientific elements of Darwinism do not actually explain the origins of form, although Darwin often claimed to be explaining the "origin" of all the specification of all forms of species the specifics of his own theory do not support his own claims once it is specified and so subject to testing, observation and falsification. That's why it so often remains hypothetical goo instead.
E.g. a definition leading to distinction at early times:
That Darwinism is not the whole doctrine of evolution is perceived clearly enough by Mr. O’Neill, who devotes two or three opening chapters to a lucid exposition of the well known fact that Natural Selection does not explain the origin of characters. This truth has for twelve years been maintained by the editors of this journal, as well as by others, and has been epitomized in the statement that “the origin of the fittest” is the primary problem of evolution, while the “survival of the fittest“ (Darwinism) is secondary.(Review: The Refutation of Darwinism, and the Converse Theory of Development, Based Exclusively Upon Darwin's Facts by T. Warren O'Neill
The American Naturalist Vol. 14, No. 3 (Mar., 1880), :193) (Emphasis added)
I.e., the most important issue when it comes to the theology, religious traditions or philosophy that Darwinists claim to be refuting with their "universal acid" is actually not dealt with scientifically.
Now that Darwinists have finally begun to run from dealing with the origins of Life and its original forming (once again being dishonest in degenerate ways even as they retreat) perhaps we can get back to the specific origins of many life forms and species instead of dealing with inane arguments that are dead and falsified at conception.
[Related posts: This post was inspired by Seeker, who seeks to set creation against evolution. See: More Genetic Evidence Against Evolution, Losing One's Faith (in Evolution) in College and What Number Do We Use For Probability = 0?)]