"... Carl Safina, an adjunct professor at Stony Brook University, has an interesting essay in the NYTimes that says that equating evolution with Charles Darwin opened the door for creationism by ignoring 150 years of discoveries, including most of what scientists understand about evolution — Gregor Mendel's patterns of heredity, the discovery of DNA, developmental biology, studies documenting evolution in nature, and evolution's role in medicine and disease. Darwinism implies an ideology adhering to one man's dictates, like Marxism, says Safina. He adds that nobody talks about Newtonism or Einsteinism, and that by making Darwin 'into a sacred fetish misses the essence of his teaching.' By turning Darwin into an 'ism,' scientists created the opening for creationism, with the 'isms' implying equivalence. 'By propounding "Darwinism," even scientists and science writers perpetuate an impression that evolution is about one man, one book, one theory,' writes Safina. '"Darwinism" implies that biological scientists "believe in" Darwin's "theory." It's as if, since 1860, scientists have just ditto-headed Darwin rather than challenging and testing his ideas, or adding vast new knowledge.'"
It seems like any way people can they want to see where the huge movement and momentum of "creationism" came from. I suppose for so long ... they thought they had won - public education, TV, books - all media saying there's no such thing as Creationism - then starting about 10 years ago more and more SCIENCE that is demonstrable, provable, and plausibly alternative started coming out. After my trip to the Creation Museum, seeing the movie Expelled, seeing the Discovery Channel documentary The Privileged Planet - I'm totally convinced that scientists have had their science backwards and that the reason "creationism" has taken off - isn't because its an "-ism". It's because more and more people have been able to see the truth behind evolution.
This scientist seems to think that creationists don't believe in evolution - in fact - to the contrary it compliments creation theory substantially - just adding intelligent design into the equation. I am the first to agree that some take creationism too far - but no more so than evolution being the ONLY answer to everything that exists as many scientists so allege.
What I haven't figured out is if the debate isn't actually over Judeo-Christian beliefs then why bring more people's attention to it such as articles in the New York Times?