[grey_whiskers]

But there are lots things that Darwin didn't know or got wrong - this is yet another reason to use a term like developmental or evolutionary biology - "Darwinism" hasn't been a science since the 1930's.

It's the old vernacular vs. specialist-in-the-field-language problem. Try reading Dorothy Sayers' Creative Mind (which I have in the paperback The Whimsical Christian, Collier Books, ISBN 0-02-096430-7).

Cheers!

[gondramB]

>>But there are lots things that Darwin didn’t know or got wrong - this is yet another reason to use a term like developmental or evolutionary biology - “Darwinism” hasn’t been a science since the 1930’s.

---

It’s the old vernacular vs. specialist-in-the-field-language problem. Try reading Dorothy Sayers’ Creative Mind (which I have in the paperback The Whimsical Christian, Collier Books, ISBN 0-02-096430-7).

Cheers! <<

I will add that one thing I got from the article in the OP was this link in a foot note
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005007.html

It goes more into the history of the use of the word Darwinism than I’ve seen elsewhere, particularly that it was used much longer by scientists in Britain than it was in the U.S.