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.
And you'll continue to be an idiot if you do. Just out of curiosity, I looked up the etymology of "Darwinism". It turns out that the word has no relationship to the Charles Darwin scientific idea of the origin of species by "survival of the fittest", but was actually coined to describe the philosophical ideas of ERASMUS Darwin, which is what you creationists are actually making war on. I suggest you leave the science to the scientists, and stick learn some philosophy.