Rod, I like your suggestion -- It works on more than one level.

Incidentally, your suggestion illustrates the problem I have with some "philosophers of science" (not the subject, but what some particular people have done with it lately). Some "philosophers of science" might write your suggestion the other way around (that Darwin didn't discover it, he invented it). Regardless of whether that might be "valid" (within that academic field), presenting that maneuver in this public debate would carelessly undermine the truth claims of science without making any effort to invalidate the truth claims of religion. The result is a net loss of public understanding (and I don't think anybody learns any philosophy from the maneuver, either). Again, I'm not busting on philosophy, or philosophers, but I am saying some particular people have made this counterproductive maneuver, and that irks me. I mean, of all the things I could write in public that might be "true" or "valid", I try to pare what I say down to the subset of those things that are helpful. And that involves effort on my part to anticipate how people are going to receive things I say. For example, I see I've taken about 50 minutes to write this post.

But I like your suggestion!