So, let's see, you don't want to teach the science of evolution because you find Darwin's views on race and sex to be offense? Nice ad hominem attack. Don't teach the science of evolution in schools because English society during the Victorian Era held distasteful views on women and black people--your powers of reasoning are breathtaking.
Marvin Lubenow is not a "Darwinist/macroevolutionist". He is a creationist. It shows the absolute bankruptcy of your position that you have to lie about him to support your ridiculous argument. Who are you going to cite next, the famed evolutionary biologist Duane Gish??
"... every Darwinist does argue from an unproven and unprovable premise: that something can come out of nothing.
Wrong. Typical ill-informed creationist crap. Evolution doesn't require "something from nothing". It is about descent with modification. Even abiogenesis doesn't require "something from nothing".
That takes "Darwinianism" out of the realm of science and into the realm of blind faith religion. If you want to have a theological debate, that's one thing. But don't assert that evolution is factually correct ...and don't force the state to spread that doctrine in schools.
Again, you are talking out of your ass. The science of evolution is based on the millions of data points that support the theory. That is not science, not religion.
And the creationist tactic to assert that evolution and creationism are equally scientific or equally religious is as tiresome as it is mendacious.
Religion is when you reject the scientific data, or make meaningless distinctions like "macroevolution" and "microevolution", or waste your time arguing between the mutually ridiculous contentions such as "young earth" versus "old earth", all because you think your faith is threatened by evolution.