Hm alright then. I would say that is certainly a misrepresentation of what Darwin set out to say, that is, what is even in the scope of evolutionary biology. However, there is a complicated though tangential issue of whether an ideology defines its subscribers or if subscribers define an ideology (of course the intuition is ideologies should define their adherents, but to push back, do we, for example, typically get graded on what we ought to do, or what we actually did). I guess no one who veritably represents the science of evolution is saying it. If you have to go to such lengths to preserve you're original hypothesis/beliefs, and abandon the most logical conclusions, you might ask why, as a psychological being, you might be compelled to do this.
However, there are fields of science that do undermine a "creation god" (which is where other people might be more grounded in these assertions). For instance, Hawkings says that time and space came into being at the big bang, so it is an invalid question to ask what created it, what is the first cause. I personally don't think this solves anything, because now you have something that created itself (nothing created it, it's the prima movens) and is all-powerful (in that laws of physics are inviolate), so to me, Hawkings just described what we typically attribute to God, without using the word. I'm showing my colors but to end on something neutral, for me, this just confirms to me why philosophy is important--because it can answer questions that empiricism doesn't aim to.