the NYT (yes, I know about my moratorium, but this article is too good to pass up) has an article by Carl Safina called "Darwinism Must Die So That Evolution May Live." The focus of the article is that the vast majority of what we have learned about evolution is in the 150 years since the publication of The Origin of Species. He writes:
Science has marched on. But evolution can seem uniquely stuck on its founder. We don’t call astronomy Copernicism, nor gravity Newtonism. “Darwinism” implies an ideology adhering to one man’s dictates, like Marxism. And “isms” (capitalism, Catholicism, racism) are not science. “Darwinism” implies that biological scientists “believe in” Darwin’s “theory.” It’s as if, since 1860, scientists have just ditto-headed Darwin rather than challenging and testing his ideas, or adding vast new knowledge.
It is telling that when one reads articles by promoters of ID, they call it "Darwinism." I have long pointed out that when someone calls it that, it is a sure sign that they know little about evolution. He continues:
Charles Darwin didn’t invent a belief system. He had an idea, not an ideology. The idea spawned a discipline, not disciples. He spent 20-plus years amassing and assessing the evidence and implications of similar, yet differing, creatures separated in time (fossils) or in space (islands). That’s science. That’s why Darwin must go.
If promoters of ID can keep the discussion focused on the "cult of Darwinism," they can continue to promote the idea that "Darwinism" has been harmful to society. Once you drag in the vast amount of research that has been done in the last 150 years, they have little response.