I suggest that terms such as Darwinism are of limited use at present. Although Darwin might have anticipated the whole ID premise, a lot of significant evidence has come to light since 1859 and a great deal of thought expended on what it means.
If we wish to distinguish arguments based upon faith and idolatory from those based upon evidence and rational thought then invoking the name of a single gifted scientist who died a long time ago and is therefore no longer around to defend or refine his position is self defeating. Darwin proposed a theory that explained a great deal about the origins and diversity of life but did so before there was much understanding of the mechanism by which this could occur - genetics. That he was so correct is a credit to his thinking and especially the parsimony of that thought.
In the field of physics, would anyone, of reasonable credibility, own up to being a “Newtonian”, in the light of everything that has been discovered since the eighteenth century? Newtonian physics works fine and dandy for most purposes but we now know it to be an incomplete view of the world as it actually is.
To attach a label like “Darwinism” to modern evolutionary theory is like telling me I’m typing this on a reticulated difference engine called a Babbage.
Single gifted scientist? If he were around today, given his theory, which has "evolved" into a cult, he'd be shouted down, ironically, as a religious kook injecting religion into science if he submitted anything that remotely challenged evolution instead of supported it. In other words, if he were to write a paper about his own theory's flaws, how do you think it would be accepted? (By that I mean rejected.) I wonder how he would feel about that.
Although Darwin might have anticipated the whole ID premise, a lot of significant evidence has come to light since 1859 and a great deal of thought expended on what it means.
If he did indeed anticipate this, it's not very apparent that he anticipated his work being hijacked by an anti-God cult that responds to each and every challenge the way it obviously does today.
In the field of physics, would anyone, of reasonable credibility, own up to being a “Newtonian”, in the light of everything that has been discovered since the eighteenth century? Newtonian physics works fine and dandy for most purposes but we now know it to be an incomplete view of the world as it actually is.
I can't think of anything that is so insecure surrounding gravity (etc.) today, that when a concerned group of parents places a sticker on a textbook reminding students as in the example in evolution is mere theory, and not fact, they get sued, can you?
Welcome to FR.