No-one is forgetting that, because it isn’t true.
In Darwin’s time, there was no such thing as an explicit science degree. The closest thing available to a formal qualification in science was a B.A. which included courses in subjects that would now fall within a science degree, such as natural history, zoology, botany, mathematics and physics.
Darwin studied natural history and botany during the course of his B.A. at Cambridge. His final examination included questions on mathematics and physics. So to the extent there were science degrees available in Darwin’s time, Darwin had one.
Your complaint is akin to complaining that the Montgolfier brothers didn’t pass FAA pilot regulations, or that the gospel writers weren’t certified for using MS Office.
That degree also covered theology. It was a requirement for specialising in divinity. It was the only study for theology Darwin undertook, and he finished it. Darwin didn’t sign up for any further divinity courses, but so what? He didn’t sign up for a pottery apprenticeship either. That’d be just as irrelevant to his later work as divinity. He did abandon his medical studies, but again, so what? None of this has any bearing at all on the correctness of scientific views 150 years later. You’re just trying to smear Darwin because you mistakenly think it’s his authority you need to challenge, not his conclusions.
Your criticism is anachronistic, misaimed, faulty and, if you persist in it, dishonest.
Done. You are wrong.