I believe that evolutionary theory is used to confuse the discussion.
Can you tell me why acceptance of evolution is so critical to some if it is not part of a greater agenda? Can you cite a single scientific advancement in the past 150 years that was predicated on the theory of evolution? People want to place Darwin on the same level as Newton, Galileo, Einstein, et al, but the fact remains that not only are his theories are not only unproven, they aren't even that significant from a scientific standpoint.
>>You can certainly call something else Darwinism if you want to but it mainly confuses the discussion.
I believe that evolutionary theory is used to confuse the discussion.<<
I don’t know how the name change came about. It looks like it happened in the 1930’s.
The orthodox answer is probably that it was both to show the incorporation of genetics and because biology was being organized more logically.
But for all I know there could have been a motive to distance modern biology from being centered on one man and to distance it from eugenics. I don’t really know.
Its reasonable that there was a strategic reason since the Scopes trial had already signaled a conflict.
But I do thinks it is healthy for us to talk about this even though we have strong disagreements on some issues.
Bottom line for me is that using biology terms go back 80 years so to change and go back to an older term is confusing.