'Course, we can all see that Darwin was talking solely about NS and Sanford was talking about random mutation and NS, so Darwin's quote doesn't even apply.
But don't worry. You looked real smart making the equivocation and the simple-minded evos will never notice the error.
Then we also see that you provide no details or arguments to rebut Sanford's position, just the same tired buzzwords that the evos swallow whole, 'parrot', 'ignorant', 'incompetence', 'idiocy', etc etc etc.
But again, you looked real smart doing it and the evos will never notice the lack of content. Quite effective for keeping the simple-minded evos in line. Must be why it is the preferred response.
It was Sanford, in the link you provided us, who set his position as against the "Primary Axiom" that evolution is nothing but natural selection plus random mutation. No such "axiom" (primary or otherwise) actually exists. It never has. What's to refute?
What if I claimed the "Primary Axiom" of Christianity was that Jesus died on a cross. True enough, so far as it goes. Jesus did die on a cross, and the cross is the most universally employed and recognized symbol of Christianity. But what if I used my "Primary Axiom" to ignore that the resurrection, the Kingdom of God, substitutionary atonement, etc, where also part of Christianity? How would you "refute" that, other than by pointing out that my "Primary Axiom" theory was simply silly, and kinda stupid?
Uh, what? It's hard to figure out what you're seeing as an "equivocation" here. How can you have have selection unless there's something (mutations, variations) to select among??? Are you trying to say Darwin thought selections works without a source of variations??????
First, Darwin I don't think used the word "mutation". He certainly wouldn't have talked about "genes" mutating because neither the gene, nor DNA, were known to him. However he did talk in terms of "variations" as the material upon which natural selection operated, and for the most part held that these variations appeared to occur randomly. So, no, he was talking about natural selection plus random variation being the primary, but not the only mechanism of evolution.
However Darwin wasn't conviced that all variation was random. He also allowed a possible role for the effects of "use and disuse". This was a weaker form of one of the Lamarkian mechanisms, but without the "chain of being" and "will to evolve" and all the other Lamarkian baggage. But it still disproves Sanford's "Primary Axiom" nonsense.