Is "Darwinism" a made-up term?

One of the many double messages one gets about evolution:

1. Evolution is so much bigger (and more robust!) than Darwinism.  Dawkins is a Darwinist but I'm not.  
2. By Darwinism, you mean "Biology." "Darwinism" is a propaganda term invented by creationists.

It's possible that (2) is more likely to be espoused by educators and lobbyists than researchers.  Richard Dawkins and Paul Gross probably exemplify (2).  Off the top of my head, Larry Moran (Sandwalk), James Shapiro, Lynn Margulis, Rudolf Raff, and the Alternberg 16 scientists own to (1), although for some of them (1) might simply mean that there is more than one mechanism even though adaptation through selection is still the primary explanation for functional information (since selection depends far less on serendipity).   

But the problem is exemplified in the recent Nature article in which biologists disagree about whether evolutionary biology is in great need of re-conception.  

Depending on which biologist you ask, attacking selection is either attacking a straw man or attacking an unassailable, unquestionable foundation of biology.  Point out this contradiction and the various factions will rally and point out that they all believe in evolution (cue "Book of Mormon" song "I Believe") and they all believe selection is important.  Just in case the "non-existent" controversy "gives aid and comfort" to the Enemy.   

I'll end with this bit of think-of-the-children-ism from secular evangelist Bill Nye:

And I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world that's completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that's fine.  But don't make your kids do it because we need them.  We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.

We need your kids to think like us.  Because engineers can't build stuff without the narrative speculations of evolutionary biology. (See Salem hypothesis)

Is the Origin of Life Part of Evolution?

I was trying to locate somebody's article/post about the double message from academia about whether origins of life are properly part of evolution.  I didn't find what I was looking for but I was amused at the first three hits on Google for Berkeley.  The one marked "Misconception" is a short summary of the message to the negative.  (This idea is often used as a counter-criticism of any criticism of the Urey-Miller experiments or of the state of 'origins of life' research.)  Looking below at the other two and you see that at the same institution Evolution 101 doesn't start with cells like the Darwin cartoon above implies but it ends with cells and starts with soup.  How we got from soup to cells is precisely the topic of 'origins of life'.  101 is usually the introductory material for a science, in this case evolutionary biology.  In the other link, the subtitle to 'Origin of Life' is 'Understanding Evolution.'  How do speculations about the "ultimate cold case" help a student understand a process that rather depends on cells already existing with their genetic code?  It's not really Darwin's bag after all.

To understand the double-think about origins of life, I don't think you have to look any further than that the tenuity and the mutual contradiction of the hypotheses are much more obvious in origins of life than in evolutionary biology proper.  The miraculousness and the void of sufficient material causes is also much more obvious.  Hence the need for many to distance it from the rest of evolutionary biology for which the most general outlines have some consensus at least.