Larry Moran says it well:
I am not a Darwinist, just as most of my colleagues in the Department of Physics are not Newtonists, and most of my friends who study genetics are not Mendelists. All three of these terms refer to the ideas of famous men (Charles Darwin, Isaac Newton, Gregor Mendel) who made enormous contributions to science. But in all three cases, the modern sciences have advanced well beyond anything envisaged by their founders.
Call me an evolutionary biologist.
Darwin’s genius was to provide the first workable naturalistic mechanism for evolution (that is, natural selection). Even he realized that other mechanisms were not only possible but perhaps necessary. To be a “Darwinist” is to claim that natural selection is more or less sufficient to explain the whole enchilada
Memo to the Discovery Institute … can you quit fighting “Darwinism” as if it is what modern evolutionary biology is about? After all, “Darwinism” is a (nearly) 150 year old idea and we have come far since 1859. It may indeed be the banner that Richard Dawkins rides under, but don’t imagine that Dawkins speaks for evolutionary biology. He certainly doesn’t speak for me.