Looking over some of the crevo threads, I can understand why they'd want to avoid it.
For the newbie, "crevo" threads are where religious battles between theists and atheists are conducted. Science itself is rarely, if ever, discussed.
The funny thing is, both the "creationists" (theists) and the "Darwinists" (mainly atheists — though I certainly don't believe all are such, just the loud ones around here, and Richard Dawkins, of course) — are engaging in theological dispute: The 800-pound gorilla in the room is always God, not Darwin. And that on both sides.
Now the theists posit many attributes to God; such as, from my little list, Creator; Father, Son, Spirit; Logos, Alpha–Omega; Savior, Redeemer; Justice, Truth, Goodness, Beauty; among others.
The atheists also posit an attribute to God, but only one: Non-existence.
Of course, one cannot posit anything of a non-existent entity. At least, not logically. 'Nuff said.
Evidently, the atheists think Darwin helps make their case; which is why the theists mainly hate Darwin.
But it seems to me Darwin should not be held culpable for the usages to which his theory has been put by modern-day ideological entrepreneurs. I don't hold him responsible for, say, Richard Dawkins.
It would be really nice to have a bona fide discussion about a scientific topic around here. Some time.
JMHO, FWIW