In the beginning, there was only the concept of mutation and selection. About 150 years ago this was called "Darwinism" and quickly swept the scientific community. Around the 1920s/30s, mutation and selection was complemented in the "modern synthesis" by quantitative and population genetics such as the Hardy-Weinberg principle, the concept of heritability, etc. Some people called this new theory "Neo-Darwinism". Since the 1950s, with the discovery of the double helix and molecular genetics, the theory of evolution has had too many contributors and too much evidence from biological fields as far apart as anthropology, paleontology, ecology, genetics and so forth, to bear the name of the person who once started the whole field of evolutionary biology.

So today, evolutionary theory is referred to by its topic, just as quantum theory or the theory of relativity in physics. And just as relativity or quantum mechanics, evolutionary theory keeps getting expanded and we discover new facets and aspects of it every day. Also much like the physics theories, there are a few new theories people are working on which could significantly alter the view we have of evolution. In physics for example, there is string theory or loop quantum gravity and others. In evolutionary theory, one hot topic is currently the question of whether and how epigenetics can provide yet a new feature of evolution, joining mutation, selection and genetics. And just like any version of "Newtonianism" has dropped out of the race for physics 100 years ago, any version of "creationism" also dropped out of the race in Biology even more than 100 years ago.
Unlike Newtonianism, however (whose correlate today is intelligent falling), creationism never was a valid scientific theory. Instead, we keep discovering new biological phenomena which tell us yet more about how evolution actually works.

Two such discoveries were published recently. One more recent paper in Nature and one in the Proceedings of the Royal Society. Both papers (require a subscription and) deal with what is called "robustness" (recent review of robustness). I'll focus on the more recent paper in Nature, which I think is a fantastic study on the robustness of gene networks and how even large-scale genetic disruptions lead to relatively small, quantitative effects with potential fitness consequences.

In the paper, Mark Islan and his colleagues describe how they randomly combined the promoter region and the coding region of about 600 genes from the common gut bacterium E. coli. They then inserted each of these randomly fused genes into one strain of E. coli and looked what happened. There are two ways to describe what the experiment did. Biologically, I would say they randomly combined the "when" and "how much" (promoter) with the "what" of 600 genes and watched what a completely arbitrary amount and timing of a random protein would do to the bacteria. Speaking on the more abstract network level, I would say that the different genes in E. coli interact much as electronic components interact in an electrical circuit. In this picture, what the researchers did was to randomly short-circuit arbitrary components of the network, and watch what happens. It doesn't take an Einstein to predict what would happen in an electrical circuit if you started to randomly short-circuit components. However, that did not happen in E. coli at all. Of the 600 strains, ~95% survived just fine. Even more surprisingly, only about 16% had any growth phenotype at all, meaning that the manipulation had only very limited effect on the bacteria. This was despite the new genes being switched on over 12 fold above normal levels in about 70% of all genes. Why does this have any bearing on evolution? It means that even large scale genetic rearrangements don't necessarily need to be fatal for the organism. Instead, genetic networks are so robust, that they can be infinitely tuned to the environment, whenever this is required. Small mutations, or large rearrangements can all lead to a better adaptation to the environment. This organization is also a consequence of evolution: if evolution were a designer, akin to a human designer, everything would break down, just like our electrical circuits do after a short circuit. So just as Bennett and Hasty write in their News and Views article on the paper, without such robustness, biological organisms would indeed behave as some creationists/IDers of today claim they would - these drastic manipulations on their genes would be fatal.

Of course, this is not the first demonstration of robustness. The more we look, the clearer the picture becomes; biological organisms are not engineered. They evolved and they work according to what you would expect from evolved systems: they are degenerate, flexible, robust and highly nonlinear. These are all properties you only would expect from organisms created by someone who would try to deceive us into developing a theory of evolution.