>>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.
I was aware you were speaking of electricity but most know only of Ben and the kite so the stove I thought a better example.
“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.”
Quite so but the rightness or wrongness of Franklin or Darwin was not the point at hand but whether their foundational role and importance of their work to modern theory was worthy of bearing their name.
Can you think of any person that occupies a more important role in any theory than Darwin does in evolutionary theory? He is it’s epitome is he not?, if so Darwinism seems ever so fitting a description does it not?
Like it or not I think Darwinism is here to stay.