[PeterPrinciple]

Anyone who refers to modern evolutionary theory as ‘Darwinism’ has no real interest in the science.

---

First there was spontaneous generation. Nope, that’s not right, can’t create life out of nothing.

Then the theory evolved to , well maybe it wasn’t spontaneous, but took millions of years. but still the same theory.

Then the building blocks had to be there (methane, temp, etc) , but is was still spontaneous generation under another name.

And now we are back to spontaneous evolution.

https://www.amazon.com/Spontaneous-Evolution-Positive-Future-There/dp/1401926312

IT IS STILL THE SAME THEORY OF SPONTANEOUS GENERATION.

[angryoldfatman]

PeterPrinciple, he may be talking pedantically about the term “Darwinism”, instead of the idea of macroevolution.

You see, if you’re a scientist, you’re supposed to disassociate the hypothesis/theory from the man who popularized it, mainly because of all the epicycles that they’ve had to compensate for (addressed by the article in the OP).

Hence, the hypothesis is now referred to as (at worst) neo-Darwinism, or MET, or the modern synthesis. NEVER as Darwinism, that’s entirely too yucky nasty dirty dirt dirt dirty ugh filth.