Getting rid of "Darwinism"

Can we also dump Copernicanism while we're about it?

I disagree that the problem with the "-ism" is that it suggests a finality to Darwins arguments,that he was the "beginning and end of evolutionary biology".
The term is not one usually used by scientists,its being propagated by Creationists,the DI and their ilk,and just represents their particular Goebbels-esque tendency to create "isms" to devalue certain theories by turning them into an -ism,Darwinist,Evulutionist etc.....

I'm relatively sure that Einsteinism needs to go, too, as well as ismism.

Ulrich Kutschera of the University of Kassel has suggested introducing the term "Darwin-Wallace principle of natural selection" (Nature 453:27, 2008).

I'm sure in German that's one word, too.

Let's see: Der Darwinische-WallaceischeSatzdernatürlicheAuslese...

How do Germans breathe, anyway?

What's that line from E. B. White? Something like "She dove into the sea of her sentence, and finally emerged, panting, on the other side, with her verb in her teeth."

(He probably used fewer commas. :))

Let's see: Der Darwinische-WallaceischeSatzdernatuerlicheAuslese...

How do Germans breathe, anyway?

Durch ihren Arschloch natuerlich!

*sigh*

Everyone's a comedian!

What's that line from E. B. White? Something like "She dove into the sea of her sentence, and finally emerged, panting, on the other side, with her verb in her teeth."

For values of E. B. White that equal S. L. Clemens, anyway.

"Whenever the literary German dives into a sentence, that is the last you are going to see of him till he emerges on the other side of his Atlantic with his verb in his mouth."

Units are often called for names of discoverers: Ohms, Volts, Newtons, Einsteins, etc. Does anyone use the evolutionary unit, the Darwin? A Darwin is a 1% change in the gene pool of a population over one generation.

"Does anyone use the evolutionary unit, the Darwin? A Darwin is a 1% change in the gene pool of a population over one generation.

I think they should refer to a kilodarwin as a "gould".

(Incidentally, there seem to be different definitions of what a darwin is floating around, or are they equivalent and I just not understanding? (very, very possible).

According to Wikipedia a darwin is an e-fold amount of change over one million years, and was devised by J. B. S. Haldane. I think it is flawed because it assumes that rates of change are commensurable across the evolutionary tree in absolute terms, and this is a mistake.