This is total hypocrisy. As the article on top shows Darwin's intent in formulating evolution was to ban God from creation,
The article shows no such thing. Darwin was explicitly silent on the subject, Darwinian evolution is about the bones, and no amount of rude language on your part can change what the historical record unambiguously shows by means of statements from the horse's mouth. Darwin studied for the cloth before he became a biologist, which explains much of why he was at pains to point out that Darwinian evolution attempts to explain nothing past what the fossil record shows.
from any role in what happens in nature. Clearly that is postulating ultimate causes. Just about every post by the evolutionists here also shows their hatred of religion. To say that evolution is not a life view is totally ludicrous.
To put thoughts into Darwin's brain contrary to his explicit statements on this subject, on the basis of generalized ontological speculation is, to be charitable, an act of sloppy scholarship--just as it failing to differentiate between what "every evolutionist posting here" thinks and what a particular science actually postulates.
As to the science of evolution, the fossil hunt has not and can never prove evolution for the simple reason that the bones of dead species tell us very little about the species itself. 99% of the biological characteristics of a species are not to be found in the bones and any assumptions, conclusions, or theories derived from such bones are necessarily incomplete, inadequate and mere supposition, not science.
As to the science of astronomy, the star hunt has not, and can never prove the theory of stellar evolution, because 99% of the transitional phase changes on the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram have never been seen in observable stars in our lifetime, therefore, stellar evolution is mere supposition, not science.
...
Science would come to a halt without supposition, ie, inductive reasoning on missing data.
The article shows no such thing.
Obviously you are either lying, did not read the article, or are seriously deficient in reading comprehension - from the article ABOVE!:
Indeed, one of his criteria for a sound hypothesis was that it must leave no room for the supernatural. As he wrote to Lyell in 1859, "I would give absolutely nothing for the theory of Natural Selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent."
Biology and astronomy have nothing to do with each other, you cannot even find a proper example to compare the lameness of evolution to any real science. Astronomy is a science because it can predict many things, has equations which can be used in its work, can predict the motion of planets and has been proven by both experiments and practical use. Evolution cannot lay claim to any of those scientific proofs.