To the best of my knowledge, Darwin wasn't an astrologer and published nothing promoting astrology. That would seem to make him ineligible for a high position at ICR.
OK, it was Snarks turn last time to lose his credibility over what he obviously didn't know. Now it's your turn.
Can you name one astrologer at ICR, or were you just trying to be fashionably sopho-moronic?
By the way, I never contested the fact that Darwin was published. He published quite a bit even as you have detailed, including Origins... out to the 6th ed. Did you get a load of some of those other titles? Or how about some of those pedestrian publications you larded that litany with? Had you bothered to check anything of what you posted, you'd have found that most of those things were the functional and intellectual equivalent of "Letters to the Editor."
Do you have the personal capability to cogently critique any of the pablum you linked to, or do you just slap up evo-spam links droning on in an attempt to bluster us all with a vast, vacant expanse of what in truth passes for little more than bulls**t? Sadly, you thought it was all so scientific. You and your other evo-drool bags oughta quit just being dullard spam link junkies and get into doing some real, cognitively substantive scientific research for a change.
I particularly liked this one: Darwin, 'Bucket Ropes for Wells', Gardeners' Chronicle, no. 2, 10 January 1852, p. 22.
"Bucket of Ropes for Wells.—I suffer from the serious misfortune of a well 325 feet deep. It is worked by two buckets, and a chain, which, from its great length, is necessarily very heavy. Would a wire rope (galvinised) answer? This, I presume, might be tight and thin; it would have to carry, at each end, a strong and heavy bucket, holding 12 gallons. The rope would have to work over, and, I presume, once quite round, a wheel only 14 inches in diameter. Would any of your correspondents have the charity to give the result of any actual experience of light wire rope; such would be of value, probably to others, as well as to myself. C.R.D."
Hey, don't look at me. You linked to it!
You seem to think that because someone is widely published, what they wrote was actually worth anyone's time to read. By that measure you'd be a likely mark for prolific writers like Helen Gurley Brown, or Mao Tse Tung, or graffiti artists who write on every bathroom stall wall they ever sat in!
But even, as you also readily admitted, trained scientists of his day didn't think much of his premise.
Naw, it wasn't until the social scientists co-opted the premise, and conned what should have been otherwise clear thinking scientists by appealing to their innate tendencies to develop inflated egos and delusional senses of their self-worth -- and the desire to be their own creators and masters of their own destines.
Funny thing is that these dupes continue to be defrauded by their own (most recently by von Zieten), because they want so badly for the premise to be true. Wishing it doesn't make it so. Nor does all the pining for it make it more scientific.
Darwinism is "scientism" -- mere premise. It has nothing at all to do with the real, objective study of science.