Uh, what? It's hard to figure out what you're seeing as an "equivocation" here. How can you have have selection unless there's something (mutations, variations) to select among??? Are you trying to say Darwin thought selections works without a source of variations??????
First, Darwin I don't think used the word "mutation". He certainly wouldn't have talked about "genes" mutating because neither the gene, nor DNA, were known to him. However he did talk in terms of "variations" as the material upon which natural selection operated, and for the most part held that these variations appeared to occur randomly. So, no, he was talking about natural selection plus random variation being the primary, but not the only mechanism of evolution.
However Darwin wasn't conviced that all variation was random. He also allowed a possible role for the effects of "use and disuse". This was a weaker form of one of the Lamarkian mechanisms, but without the "chain of being" and "will to evolve" and all the other Lamarkian baggage. But it still disproves Sanford's "Primary Axiom" nonsense.
Nothing about 'selection' that is inconsistent with a created genome that is in decline.
Nothing about 'variation' acted on by 'selection' that is inconsistent with a created genome that is in decline.
Nothing about 'evolution' at all that is inconsistent with a created genome that is in decline.
No unique evidence that supports evolution-only at all.
This makes 'evolution' metaphysical.