But that's not what Darwin suggests. Darwin never got into WHY or WHO but only HOW. All of his stuff is about explaining how we got to all these species and how we had fossil records of species that aren't around anymore and how the fossil records of current species don't last all through the record. Didn't say it was a blind mechanism, didn't say it precluded the Devine hand, didn't get into any of that. Much like how early experimenters in electricity never bothered to explain why it's there, but merely how it works, which is really how most scientists do their thing. Science is about how, they leave who and why up to religion.
And his "how" has been taking a beating lately, by advances in science no less.
Say what you will, but Darwin was relieved to have come up with a theory which took God out of the equation, so to speak. He may not have formally questioned "why" or "who," but his theory brought comfort to his unbelief. Do you think Richard Dawkins, to mention one prominent evolutionist, doesn't have an anti-religious axe to grind as an apologist for Darwinism? The fact that most evolutionists, including the vast majority I see on these FR threads, consider believers in God to be supertitious nimrods belies your suggestion that Darwin, or his followers, were religiously neutral.