Unfortunately all interpreted through the fallacy of affirming the consequent and untestable otherwise because of billions of years of assumed history, assumed life forms and assumed processes.
"—Any evidence for that claim or is that just a whopper of a fallacy of equivocation?"
Yes, see my prior posts. I have identified them.
"—Darwinism isn’t in any way dependent on how life began. Which is why he never talks about it in any of his published works."
Actually he did. He said, "I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of any one. It is satisfactory as showing how transient such impressions are to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man namely the law of the attraction of gravity was also attacked by Leibnitz as subversive of natural and inferentially of revealed religion. A celebrated author and divine has written to me that he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self development into other and needful forms as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws."
As I said, Darwin simply made these ancient pagan ideas (spontaneous generation of maggots from carcasses and rats from garbage) untestable by making the organisms ‘simple’ and pushing them back into unobservable, assumed time frames. Thus making his theory unfalsifiable and dependent on the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
“Unfortunately all interpreted through the fallacy of affirming the consequent and untestable otherwise because of billions of years of assumed history, assumed life forms and assumed processes.”
—In what sense is it interpreted through that fallacy?
And it is testable: Any number of potential fossil discoveries or discoveries from DNA could disprove the theory.
“As I said, Darwin simply made these ancient pagan ideas (spontaneous generation of maggots from carcasses and rats from garbage) untestable by making the organisms ‘simple’ and pushing them back into unobservable, assumed time frames. Thus making his theory unfalsifiable and dependent on the fallacy of affirming the consequent.”
—True, the theory of evolution can’t be tested by how life began, because the theory isn’t dependent on how life began – whether life through divine creation, as the quote you gave mentions, or spontaneous generation, or abiogenesis, or aliens, or smurfs, it doesn’t affect the theory.