It can be said that one who consciously lies and deceives others is dishonest; however, one who believes that lie and propagates it isn’t. However, if a person is propagating such a lie, that person is necessarily one of the two: deceiver, or deceived.

Such is the case with anyone who uses the terms “Darwinism” and “Darwinist”.

Why is it? Because those terms are both inaccurate, and loaded.

They’re inaccurate because modern evolutionary theory, much like any science, has itself evolved, and biologists know much more about the workings of evolution than Darwin did, more than 150 years ago. While, say, religious beliefs themselves change and evolve with time (anyone who believes today’s Christianity has anything to do with what Jesus preached is completely deluded, and should someday try to read the gospels as what they really say, without any preconceptions), they don’t do that openly. In other words, there are branches of Christianity which claim to want to “go back to the basics”, but, typically, you don’t see “Christians” claiming that “Jesus was on to something, but we’ve improved over his primitive teachings“. They do that (after all, the apocalyptic, “sell everything you have, the end is near” trappings of Christ’s Christianity couldn’t have lasted long as a religion, at least with any degree of earthly success), but they don’t claim that — or, if they do, then they have to accept that Jesus was just a man, and such a belief can no longer be called “Christianity”. Islam is a popular example of that (to them, Jesus was just a mortal prophet).

Science, however, evolves, and while the founder / discoverer of a branch is honored and respected, scientists don’t treat his or her words as “holy” or as dogma. No biologist would ever say something like “it’s like this, because Darwin said so.” In science, reality is the final arbiter, and no hypothesis or theory is ever sacred. If anyone ever disproves (with evidence) evolution as we know it, science will abandon it and replace it with a better predictive explanation; the fact that nobody has managed to do it in almost two centuries (and it wasn’t from lack of trying) should tell us something.

We don’t call gravity “Newtonism”, because Newton wasn’t the be-all, end-all of gravity — nor did he claim to be. His writings aren’t the final word on gravity. There is no “final word”, but any new “words” must be tested against reality, and must be able to predict new situations as accurately as possible (say, the orbits of planets). “Newtonism” would suggest that modern physicists worship Newton, that they take his word as dogma, that modern physics are just a case of spreading Newton’s word to the unenlightened. You know, much like religion?

“Darwinism” is exactly the same. The implication of the term is that evolutionary biologists worship Darwin, that modern biology is just the study, understanding and spreading of Darwin’s word. That such a belief is dogmatic, and taken on faith. You may not mean it that way, but that’s what the word implies. If you disagree, consider what saying “Newtonism” instead of “gravity” sounds like.

And yet I keep seeing the term tossed around. Especially — of course — by intelligent design advocates. Who, as Expelled has shown, are not necessarily the most honest people around. Now, if you say “Darwinism” instead of “evolution (by natural selection)”, which are you? The deceiver, who fully knows the implications of such a loaded term, but wants to promote the idea of evolution as a Darwin-worshipping cult? Or the deceived, who was fooled by the former?