Evolution and Darwin[ism]

Apparently, there's a bit of a discussion online about whether or not we all should stop calling it "Darwinian/-ist/-ism":

Why is [focusing on Dawrin] a problem? Because it’s all grossly misleading. It suggests that Darwin was the beginning and the end, the alpha and omega, of evolutionary biology, and that the subject hasn’t changed much in the 149 years since the publication of the “Origin.”

I agree. Anti-evolutionists base many of their arguments on quote-mines of Darwin's Origins, as if it were some sort of holy tome of evolutionary biology; an analogue to the Bible and Christianity. However, anyone who has taken a course in evolutionary biology will know that - apart from mentioning Darwin and Origins as part of the history of evolutionary biology - Darwin and Origins are hardly mentioned at all. Indeed, Origins is not likely even a required reading. Instead, there are several textbooks that show many of the advances that have taken place since 1859, including the discovery of DNA, the types and role of mutations, accounts of speciation observation, etc.

But I digress. To return to my argument: I’d like to abolish the insidious terms Darwinism, Darwinist and Darwinian. They suggest a false narrowness to the field of modern evolutionary biology, as though it was the brainchild of a single person 150 years ago, rather than a vast, complex and evolving subject to which many other great figures have contributed. (The science would be in a sorry state if one man 150 years ago had, in fact, discovered everything there was to say.) Obsessively focusing on Darwin, perpetually asking whether he was right about this or that, implies that the discovery of something he didn’t think of or know about somehow undermines or threatens the whole enterprise of evolutionary biology today.

As a former environmental and evolutionary biologist, I have to agree with much of this sentiment, and so do contributors over on Scienceblogs. They all seem to have a similar aversion to the words "Darwinism" and "Darwinist" - as if these words were epithets that had been slung in their direction too many times.

However, as Mike the Mad Biologist concludes,

Of course, creationists will always call evolutionary biology Darwinism. One reason is that they don't know what they're talking about, and so, party like it's 1859. The other reason is that they can't afford to acknowledge that evolutionary biology is a dynamic growing field that successfully and continuously meets the challenge of new data.

So if Mike is right (and it seems like he might be, based on what I keep seeing on YouTube), the creationist argument - especially the YEC argument of Biblical literalism - will clutch on to the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinist" (sometimes convoluting them with the term "athiest" and "secularist") with a calcifying grip to ensure that their definition of the term is inculcated into the minds of their followers. Similar to the arguments made from a literal reading of the Bible, the form of the "Darwinist" cannot be allowed to change.