Some biologists might shudder at the thought of eliminating Darwinism from their scientific work.
...
Why would they care when they rarely if ever use the term Darwinism?
However, try to eliminate comparative anatomy and comparative genomics, then they would really get upset.
The theme of the article wasn't on the use of the word "Darwinism" itself, but rather the obligatory "narrative gloss" of evolution buzz-words which serve no useful purpose except to kiss the ring of Charlie Darwin, or, as the article labels it, "unnecessary philosophical baggage":
"To hard-core evolutionists, it might sound like a cephalectomy (removal of the head)! If Darwinism is as essential to biology as Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne argues, then removing evolutionary words and concepts should make research incomprehensible. If, on the other hand, Darwinism is more of a 'narrative gloss' applied to the conclusions after the scientific work is done, as the late Philip Skell observed, then biology would survive the operation just fine. It might even be healthier, slimmed down after disposing of unnecessary philosophical baggage." ["No Harm, No Foul: What If Darwinism Were Excised from Biology?". Evolution News & Science Today, Dec 4, 2019]
Mr. Kalamata