You THINK??? And that's supposed to be convincing??
Is Scott, et al, ready to discard Darwin's basic premises? Or is it the case that it's time to redefine the term “evolution” so it can mean something else?
I can understand how Darwin might be a drag on redefining the language but neither you nor Scott has made the case why “Darwinism” is not descriptive, other than her feud with creationists, which is not my problem or concern.
Certainly it's not going to restrict my use of Darwinism.
So, I'll go on using the term, Darwinism, and quite properly so.