Darwinism fits quite well as he may rightly be called the father of modern evolution.
It would be difficult to speak of the Franklin stove without reference to Franklin. There have been endless modifications to his basic design but they still contain the basic elements of the original to the point they can accurately be called “Franklin” stoves, not developmental heating devices or some such.
Darwinism for Darwin's “children”.
>>Your analogy fails. Darwin’s theory of natural selection is the basis of biological evolutionary thinking today. The mechanisms and examples may be debated by evolutionists but natural selection is still the underpinning of Darwin’s theory of evolution and of biological evolutionary theory today.<<
Darwin didn’t even know about electrons or genetics, much less DNA. Do we build on Darwin’s work the same way we build on other great scientists? You bet. But to equate developmental biology with Darwinism is to be 80 years out of date.
>>Darwinism fits quite well as he may rightly be called the father of modern evolution.
It would be difficult to speak of the Franklin stove without reference to Franklin. There have been endless modifications to his basic design but they still contain the basic elements of the original to the point they can accurately be called “Franklin” stoves, not developmental heating devices or some such.<<
I should have clarified I was talking about Franklin’s work on electricity, not the stove. There case where we use someone’s name because he’s that dominant and the Franklin Stove is a good example. But though he was the leader in electricity and popularized it Franklin’s great work was equation the electricity in a battery with the electricity in lighting. Today that’s just a starting point and we don’t call electrical theory Franklinism nor would it make sense to say semi-conductors shouldn’t work because Franklin was ignorant of modern theory.