@Sy_Garte
Yes, you understood it well. You are welcome & I’m glad you aim at more precision in the future. I have no idea what you mean by a ‘philosophical worldview’ (you also use “overarching philosophical view,” apparently same meaning) as that is non-standard terminology, but you nonetheless identify a need to distinguish more than one meaning of ‘Darwinism’ for the sake clarity. We are on the same page certainly with that.
On one hand is science, the other is ideology. Sometimes people blurr them … and sometimes on purpose, as the IDM does. BioLogos seems to have pushed away the term ‘Darwinism’ as generally not helpful. ID people, however, and their creationist forebears simply cannot give it up, as outdated as it makes them look does not seem to matter to them.
Non-Darwinist doesn’t need or make use of Darwin’s theories, certainly, but also rejects or has no application of Darwinism ideology in their works. I don’t need Darwinism or Darwin in my writings, although he makes an excellent foil when needed given his philosophical naivety and assisted assault (via Huxley, Haeckel, etc.) on religious humanism.
It is an unfortunate reality that to deal with YECs, sometimes people allow their language to ‘take the shape’ of their opponent, in order to challenge them ‘on their own ground.’ In this case, I find it better to stick firmly to one’s position. The term ‘Darwinism’ is largely a relic of outdated 20th century (young earth) ‘Creationist’ discussions-debates-battles that most normal, rational people no longer engage, including normal, rational Christians. If it were not for trying to educate and elevate the understanding of these ‘Christian laggards’ regarding evolutionary theories, few people would use the term ‘Darwinism’ anymore, though it is still notably used by relatively small clique of anti-religion biologists (i.e. those whose focus seems to distract ID people from doing creditable scientific research).
The term ‘Darwinism’ cannot be ‘reclaimed’ by BioLogos as it said it might possibly like to try to reclaim the term ‘design’ and thus is better left on the side of the road. Darwin’s due celebration in the annals of natural scientific history remains solid but not exaggerated among natural scientists and those not playing Pilate vs. Darwin games. But there is little need anymore to hype Darwin, especially after such events and talks, papers and books published in 2009.
Yes, I notice you have written about the EES. Do you know why doesn’t BioLogos write more about it, since that’s really where the action is now? Fighting against creationists seems to now as a kind of 20th century pastime or hobby that should be replaced with more edifying common ground away from YECism in evangelical America. Decline in YECism in America would seem to be long overdue for a significant dwindling in #s.
A better question mho for this thread would be: Does biology need the (extended) Modern Synthesis? Some biologists are simply saying to include more things into the synthesis that were originally left out mid-20th c. Others are saying something new is needed that is not just an add-on. What does BioLogos say? How far can the evolutionary synthesis be extended before it becomes not evolutionary anymore, i.e. undoes ‘the synthesis’?