I wasn't trying to play *gotcha*, but to point out that there may be other less authoritative, or less august sources which still support the "Darwinism means evolution" populist usage.
(How many of the people on Jay Leno's Jaywalking -- not a decidedly fundamentalist group -- would define Darwinism as evolution, if they've heard of anything more than last week's American Idol?)
Cheers!
Well, Alfred Wallace wrote a book called "Darwinism". Really, how can anyone ask that thousands of references to "Darwinism" in books be erased or semantically eradicated? It's typical Darwinian arrogance to demand such things.
The problem is with the scientific popularizers and journalists, who (mis)translate what little they know of science for mass consumption.
Putting those two statements together, I guess you're just defining "Darwinism" as the popular conception of evolution, and expressing a wish that people understood it better. I couldn't agree more (especially after reading these threads). Having done some science journalism, though, I have sympathy for the people who try to explain this stuff at a high-school level. It requires simplification, and simplifying a complex concept is always going to make it "wrong" (like calling a member of the family from a long way back an "ancestor").