Charles Darwin; the original Devil's chaplain

One hundred and fifty years after his death, Charles Darwin is still getting the white wash treatment by Christian liberals. He's presented as a sensitive christian (or deist) who was merely seeking the truth no matter where it led him. I consider this a gross distortion.

Quotes and comments;

A. "What a book a devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low and horribly cruel processes of nature,'' he [Darwin] wrote to a friend. [1.]
- He's referring to all the pollen that goes to waste, ants using ants as slaves, and various parasites, etc.

On what basis did Darwin know any process was wasteful? Wasn't he merely basing such a claim on his own ignorance?
A biblical view of creation expects that God knew what he was doing when he designed prolific processes in nature; and expects that these are (at least at times) necessary to the continuance of the species involved.

- On what basis is Darwin accusing the God of being clumsy and blundering? It would appear he based it on the bottomless depths of his own ignorance.

- On what basis (by what standard) does Darwin call the processes of nature cruel? Having rejected the bible he has no standard left but the chemical fumes circulating in his own skull. If man is merely matter in motion, he has no basis for calling anything cruel. For something to be cruel there must be an alternative. If something is necessary it can't be called cruel. What Darwin is saying is that God is responsible for needless suffering, and that he's either indifferent to it, or takes delight in it. The implicit idea is that He could have done things differently.
Once again we see the conflation of language; using the same terms for insects and human beings. This is either conscious slander (blasphemy) or it's deeply deluded thinking.

- We're no better in our day; as this confusion of language is rampant. (I see this as one of the major intellectual errors of our time.) People claim to be scientific, but they use words in a confused and stupid way; showing no precision of definition, nor care in use. To use the same words for insects and humans is to show yourself clueless. One cannot think rationally if one commits such a gross blunder in one's thinking. (Language is just one more divine gift that man has abused.)

- Darwin did write such a book of course; it was called the 'Origin of species'. (Later R. Dawkins a book which borrowed this phrase as a title.) It's my opinion that Darwin saw himself as the devil's chaplain. I assume he meant this to refer to someone who tries to discredit and defame the creator. He seems to be placing himself on the side of the Devil. (I don't see any other reasonable explanation.) Being a very proper Victorian he didn't of course believe in a real Devil, but was using the term as a symbol for those opposed to biblical Christianity. [2.]

- Few people know or admire Charles Darwin as well as Richard Dawkins. I don't think he has any doubt that Darwin was the original devil's chaplain, and that he's only carrying on in this 'proud' tradition.

Notes;
1. Darwin's God - Cornelius Hunter/page 10.
2. Hunter tells us that 'Paradise Lost' was one of Darwin's favorite books. I assume he was one of the people who (mistakenly) see the Devil as the hero of Milton's great epic.
- In this account the Devil rebels against God; later he tries to deceive Adam and Eve into joining his rebellion. I don't think it's stretching things to claim that Darwin was engaged in the same project. (The key Humanist idea has always been that true and important knowledge can only be gained by rejecting God and his word.) The idea was that man could only progress socially (evolve) by rejecting biblical Christianity.