Equating evolution with Charles Darwin ignores 150 years of discoveries, including most of what scientists understand about evolution. Such as: Gregor Mendel’s patterns of heredity (which gave Darwin’s idea of natural selection a mechanism — genetics — by which it could work); the discovery of DNA (which gave genetics a mechanism and lets us see evolutionary lineages); developmental biology (which gives DNA a mechanism); studies documenting evolution in nature (which converted the hypothetical to observable fact); evolution’s role in medicine and disease (bringing immediate relevance to the topic); and more.
By propounding “Darwinism,” even scientists and science writers perpetuate an impression that evolution is about one man, one book, one “theory.” The ninth-century Buddhist master Lin Chi said, “If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.” The point is that making a master teacher into a sacred fetish misses the essence of his teaching. So let us now kill Darwin.
-----------------

Gus: Strong words from a scientist called Carl Safina. And he has a point, to a point. But before Darwin shall be killed in our advanced sceptic minds, the idea of god, allah, jehovah and other gods need to be totally snuffed out...

But at the rate we're going, too many religious (or pseudo-scientists) people need a strong dose of Darwinism before moving on to the next level, where they should meet the true non-purpose of life and its complex natural mechanics... Yet, no matter what Mr Safina says hopefully with tongue in cheek, Charles Darwin shook the scientific world 150 years ago. Darwin opened the minds of many people towards understanding the planet a bit (lots) better than ever before. One can argue about a little wanderings in some of his knowledge and postulation — and one can glorify what happened next in science — or who really understood evolution first — but at least Darwin put a big important slab of hypothesis that led to more discoveries and understanding. Without Darwinism, there would not be evolution theory around the survival of species in nature, there would not be IVF, nor medicine as we know it, nor genetics and no gene mapping and manipulation. Some of Darwin hypothesis were too controversial at the time to be published: sex and procreation being the prime driving force of individuals in species. incremental changes were mechanical chemical adaptation via the success or failure of sexual individuals in species.

Thus on this Valentine's day, give Charles a hug and a thought. Let's not kill Darwinism before the goose of religion is burnt and not before science rules with humanist values that have strong ethical (stylistic) choices, rather than the illusionary crude spectre of "good and evil". May love be with your choices.