I think the problem with "Darwinism" is not the risk of it being sounding Darwin-worshipping but is more the case that Darwinian evolution is outdated in the way that the Rutherfordian or Plum-Pudding models of atomic structure are outdated. In the end though, evolution insofar as it is projected backward can only be a model, which scientists attempt to make more internally rigorous and consistent with experimentation in the present.

@leemute, microevolution does not necessarily insure processes of macroevolution, not all qualities can be reduced to qualities, though @tracker, your point about the arbitrariness of gaps is well taken. In any case, one could also accept macroevolution in theory, but still hold a ~6,000 year-old earth belief which makes macroevolution unacceptable in practice. That is, experimental evidence of evolution does not necessarily require one to give it much more status as an origin of life than any other internally consistent theory, belief, or myth.