This information leads to some wonderful questions: Do gravitons have mass? In which direction do gravitons flow? Can gravitons be blocked? If they are blocked, is the effect of gravity also blocked? (Seems to be a "duh" sorta question, don't you think?) How do gravitons relate to gravity waves?

The reality is that we have a lot more information about evolution than we have about gravity — and we can manipulate the "particles" of evolution to change things. We're a long way away from such tricks with gravity. We can directly measure evolution, but we can't directly detect gravity, yet.

It's an exciting area of science. Were we to be consistent, if we teach that there are problems with Darwinian theory and that it may not be true, we should do the same with gravity, don't you think?

It's not that the labels are unfair, it's that they are generally irrelevant. Creationists are creationists whether they are the diminishingly small group of Christians who cling to the ideas, like ID-guru Phillip Johnson and ID-star Jonathan Wells, or whether they are the odd science bashing sorts who plague science from an Islamic perspective in Turkey.

My point with numbers is that there are few scientists, if any, who "want to distance themselves from Darwinism," as the lead article indicates. In percentages and sheer numbers, there are many more ID creationists who wish to distance themselves from creationism.

The author asks whether the imagined distancing from "Darwinism" "bespeak[s] the end times for the label and the paradigm with it?"

Well, ask not for whom the paradigm tolls. It tolls for thee. It is IDists who are doing the distancing.

Agreed, and consider, even if true, how almost rude to say, though deserving, "atheist scientist Richard Dawkins". "Atheist scientist Sean Carrol" wrote a book on evolutionary biology. Would Shanks welcome references to him in peer-reviewed journals as Evolutionary Atheist Niall Shanks who promotes Darwinian Atheism. "

Atheist Scientist Carl Sagan invites you people to see his movie Cosmos where he promotes his Atheist agenda." Or how about: "Ken Miller joins forces with the Christian-hating Dawkins." Indeed, even if the labels are true of these individuals, protocol would demands a little restraint in the usage.

A much lower percentage of Darwinists wish to distance themselves from the term "Darwinism" than the percentage of IDists who wish to distance themselves from the term "creationism."

In fact, in absolute numbers, I'll bet those fleeing the creationism label outnumber the biologists, too.

I don't know what your point is with the numbers but I would suspect that there are at least two prominent reasons to distance oneself from a label. First, if the label seems to misrepresent the person labeled then that person would more than likely not want it used. Secondly, if the label has a perjorative sense about it then the person might not want it used even if it did accurately characterize them.

I would doubt that there is much mislabeling of scientists as Darwinists, but the seeming carte blanche use of the term "creationist" to anyone friendly to ID certainly mislabels many of them. While there are variations of meaning associated with words, for any given word (label) there is still a predominant meaning within a given culture. There can be no question that the predominant meaning, at least in the US, of "creationist" is the likes found in the dictionary:

Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

That being the case it is no wander that those who do not interpret the creation account of the Bible literally would not want to have that label applied to them.

Darwinism isn't going away, just as gravity isn't.

Please, edarrell, tell us the cause of gravity… please? I've been waiting on that one for a coon's age!

In fact, in absolute numbers, I'll bet those fleeing the creationism label outnumber the biologists, too.

Did you catch the recent court settlement in California? A fellow who was advocating some form of anti-evolution stuff be added to a school district's curriculum sued for slander when he was accused of using creationist material — and he got a settlement! No biologist has claimed it's defamatory to be called "Darwinist," yet, but we know now it's defamatory — that is, akin to being labeled a felon — to be called a "creationist."

Darwinism isn't going away, just as gravity isn't.