A while back, I posted a short piece criticizing the Rt. Rev. and the Rt. Hon. Lord Habgood, P. C., former Archibishop of York (number 2 in the Anglican hierarchy) and Ph.D physiologist, for his use of the terms “Darwinism” and “scientific orthodoxy” in a review of a history of creationism. In that post I wrote,
Just to reduce this to the absurdity it is: does anyone out there think “Newtonianism” is a good term to describe the branch of knowledge that enables us, inter alia to calculate the trajectory of a comet?
Well, someone does. Leslie Darrow, proprietor of the Mid-Anglican blog had this to say about what seemed to me to be about as banal an observation as I could imagine:
I don’t know why not. Calculating the trajectory of a comet doesn’t need anything more sophisticated than Newtonian mechanics.
I replied that I was afraid Darrow was being either silly or obtuse, for reasons that I think are obvious. No one refers to the ideas in The Principia as the corpus of Newtonism. Mechanics, maybe, or in the case of problems involving Newtonian gravity, celestial mechanics, but not Newtonism, or Isaackery or anything of the sort. No one.
Similarly, no one refers to this or this or this as successful applications of the methods of Darwinism. They are all, of course, results achieved under the umbrella category of evolutionary biology, using methods from specialized biological disciplines ranging from field ecology to molecular genetics — the latter a practice for which Darwin lacked even the vocabulary to imagine
That all seems pretty standard issue stuff — and even if you don’t want to go all philosophical on me, it comes back to the practice, the use of terms in science. Do we refer to the study of molecular genetics as Watson-and-Crickism?
We do not.
Unfortunately, Darrow proceeded to dig herself in deeper.