A couple of days ago, Carl Safina had an essay in The New York Times entitled Darwinism Must Die So That Evolution May Live that discusses the cult of personality that has grown up around Darwin and how it is hurting the acceptance of the theory of evolution. Much of what he says about how little of what we now know about evolution actually originated with Darwin is correct, but the case for killing Darwin is, perhaps, a bit overstated. I don't think people reject evolution because of some lack of trust of Darwin or the fact that Darwinism kind of sounds like Marxism. Rather, people who would rather not believe in something like evolution try to poke holes in the theory any way they can. Darwin provides a convenient target. The problem is not those people, but the many people who don't really care enough to look into it themselves and are happy to accept there is some ambiguity because there is dissent; regardless of how unsubstantiated that dissent is. The bottom line is that even if all scientists stop using any term derived from Darwin's name, those who wish to foment distrust still will. And people who don't have strong feelings one way or another will continue to listen (or not) to both. This is really just a symptom of the tenuous relationship our society has had with science (and intellectualism) for many years.