I wouldn't call what I advocate as Darwinism. And if push came to shove, I
doubt that Gould and Eldridge would label their views as "Darwinism".
Darwinism was what Darwin and the biologists in the later part of the
nineteenth century believed. NeoDarwinism is the word most evolutionists
would use today (I believe. I will bow before the correction of some
biologist). And punc-eq is different from NeoDarwinism. Thus, if you are
fighting Darwinism, you are fighting views that are out of date by 100 years.
This is similar to the oft condemned Uniformitarianism in geology.
Geologists, (contrary to many apologetical books) do not believe in
uniformitarianism anymore. Uniformitarianism as advocated by Lyell believed
not only that the only acceptable processes which could occur were processes
observed today, they also believed that the RATES of those processes must be
the same throughout all time. In other words, Lyell advocated a perpetual
motion machine. Today, geologists believe in what is called 'actualism'. It
means merely that the laws of physics and chemistry were the same in the
geologic past as they are today. This is why it is no big deal for geology
to incorporate the catastrophic meteor impact at the end of the Cretaceous.
The laws of physics were the same at the end of the Cretaceous so gravity
and orbital mechanics caused the collision.
My point in all this is that you seem to want evolutionary theory to remain
static and unchanging from what either Darwin believed, or what Dawkins
believes. This will never be the case. While I will agree that probably the
majority of biologists are neodarwinians, that does not mean that the
neodarwinians are correct. IMO (and the opinion of others to whom I am
grateful for some of this) the next great school of thought in evolutionary
theory will combine nonlinear dynamics with punc-eq. and developmental
biology. Those three views are made for each other and can explain a whole
lot of unexplained phenomena such as the Cambrian Explosion, transitions
between taxa and the nature of the fossil record. Of course, we Christians,
will still be fighting (and quoting) the views held by Darwin (as if Darwin
wrote some sort of biological sacred text that all biologists must sign an
oath to support).
Darwin was wrong on numerous points (e.g. his view of heredity).
Extremely few biologists believe in Darwins view of heredity today (I won't
say none, cause I feel certain someone does)
So, your criticisms of who accepts what view are not really relevant.
What is important is the question "Does a given view explain the data" The
coming synthesis of these three items listed above is the science of the
early next century which Christians are going to have to deal with and it
explains a lot.
glenn