Those who use such wishy-washy qualifiers to buttress their claims, have no other legitimate choice.
According to Charles Darwin, himself, the ultimate purpose of macroevolution (Darwinianism)is survival: not the production of true beliefs.
"With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" ~ Charles Darwin
Patricia Churchland agrees with Darwin:
"Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the four F's: feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing. The principle chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. . . . . Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism's way of life and enhances the organism's chances of survival. Truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost."
LOL
"With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" ~ Charles Darwin
Ah, yes ... yet another out-of-context quote, a splendid example of creationoid "research." Here is that same sentence fragment (shown in blue) with the surrounding text included:
... there are some points in your book which I cannot digest. The chief one is that the existence of so-called natural laws implies purpose. I cannot see this. Not to mention that many expect that the several great laws will some day be found to follow inevitably from some one single law, yet taking the laws as we now know them, and look at the moon, where the law of gravitation-and no doubt of the conservation of energy-of the atomic theory, etc. etc., hold good, and I cannot see that there is then necessarily any purpose. Would there be purpose if the lowest organisms alone, destitute of consciousness existed in the moon? But I have had no practice in abstract reasoning, and I may be all astray. Nevertheless you have expressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe is not the result of chance. But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?In the actual letter, Darwin isn't discussing macro-evolution at all. Not even close. He's discussing the role of chance and purpose in the universe, and the blue part expresses his doubts about his conclusions. This is irrelevant to macro-evolution. Further, note how the bogus quote falsely begins in mid-sentence, in an attempt to disguise that it is snatched from a larger bit of writing. All creation "science" is fraudulent.
From a letter to W. GRAHAM, dated July 3rd, 1881. Source: here.