"We don’t call astronomy Copernicism, nor gravity Newtonism."<p>We do refer to "Newtownian physics" to refer to pre-relativity and pre-quantum mechanics.<p>I think this is a non-issue. The people who think evolutionary theory stopped with Darwin aren't going to pick up on that because you use a different name.
The problem is that once they stop calling it Darwinism, what do you call it, to keep it distinct from ID? They can't just call it evolution, since IDers don't all deny common descent, old earth, etc. and can thus claim the evolution label for their theories. It has to be called something like "evolution only by natural selection" or "natural evolution" or somesuch. But then this sounds too restrictive and gives popular credence to the ID rhetoric of "why are evolutionists so cloes minded?"<p>An added problem is that ID doesn't even have to appeal to a god or aliens. They can just restrict their theory to a more Lamarckian idea, that animals genetically engineer themselves, either intentionally or by happenstance. Once they do this, then the theory fits entirely within a naturalistic paradigm.<p>So, I'd say the essay is right. Darwinism has a problem of rhetoric on its hands.
Do we have to associate evolution with Darwinism?<p>For that matter, why do we keep associating ID with Creationism?<p>Fuzzy words lead to fuzzy arguments.
We all know an idea is worth nothing until it's turned into a product. Maybe Darwin didn't invent evolution but he turned it into a product (a book) and sell it to people. That's why the unknown farmer who maybe got the idea before him shouldn't be remember and we should remember Darwin forever.