I have read Darwin's works--thanks for posting it though. I could not find an internet version, so I have had to try and thumb though the books to make my points.
That begin said, you can suggest that Darwin did not make the case for no need for a God if you wish (the origins of life and the non-directional or random change in living organisms), but that assessment is different than mine.
I make no bones about the fact that I agree with the majority of the book. Ideas such as "natural selection" are clearly true and nobody in their right mind would attempt to argue that fact.
But is the claim that existing animals and plants cannot have appeared separately but must have slowly transformed from ancestral creatures that I have a major problem with. Perhaps his later work "Decent of Man" is a better example of this than is "Species"--sorry if I have confused the two works during this discussion. This book elaborates on the transformation of species, a subject he did not fully discuss in "Origin of Species."
The theory makes the claim that humans evolved from apes! Nowhere in the fossil record is this suggested to be correct. It also goes against the God from the Bible--which I believe. If life did evolve in this way, there is no purpose for life and humans are nothing more than supped-up animals--and I disagree with that notion.
I apologize if my "tone" seemed harsh or that I had not read the material--I have--and I disagree.