Then an amazing thing happened. Salvador Cordova, another well-known creationist, posted a comment on one of Torley's blog posts. You can see it as comment #39 on Branko Kozulic responds to Professor Moran. Cordova was responding to comments posted by Nick Matzke and "WD400" on that same post. Here's what Sal Cordova said,
Dr. Torley,The reason why this is so remarkable is that it almost never happens under the creationist big tent. Different Intelligent Design Creationists have widely conflicting views ranging from Young Earth Creationism to Theistic Evolution Creationism but they always manage to cover up those conflicts and present a united front in attacking evolution.
I’m sorry I must sympathize with Nick Matzke (puke) and WD400 objections, but I feel some obligation to ask you to at least pause and reconsider.
The YEC Creationist genetics model, Mendel’s Account agrees to great degree with Larry Moran, Nick Matzke, and WD400. Mendel’s accountant was developed by John Sanford (applied geneticist), Walter ReMine (ID author), John Baumgardner (Princeton and Sandia Lab Scientist), Wes Brewer (MIT PhD), Paul Gipson (Professor of Population Genetics), Robert Carter (PhD genetic engineer and population geneticist), several un-named guilty parties. Mendel’s accountant was featured at the Cornell conference.
I hate being on the opposite side of the majority ID view, but like the arguments over the 2nd law, I have a responsibility to ID students matriculating through secular universities in science curricula to speak up if I think the ID side should reconsider what they are saying. I could of course be wrong too, but I hope you’ll recognize, not every ID proponent would be enthused to disagree with Dr. Moran on the neutral fixation issue. Neutral evolution has it’s flaws, but this isn’t necessarily one worth going after.
When I’m wrong]. Poor Branko Kozulic was hung out to dry. Torely felt sorry for him so he posted two articles written by Kozulic: Branko Kozulic Responds and Branko Kozulic responds to Professor Moran, Part II.
In the first of those posts, Kozulic says, "Since my reputation is at stake, I kindly ask you to make my position public in another post at Uncommondescent under the title: ‘When I am not wrong’ ...." I responded to Kozulic's questions. I think there are several Intelligent Design Creationists who will be satisfied with my response.
As you can imagine, these posts have caused a bit of a kerfluffle on Uncommon Descent. If you read the comments, you'll see that some hard-core creationists aren't at all happy to admit that they don't understand evolution and they are even less happy to admit that some scientists might have been right and some creationist might have been wrong. Something has to be done about that.
Neutral theory and non-Darwinian evolution for newbies, Part 1], he said ...
The most comprehensive software model of textbook population genetics for important evolutionary questions was Mendel’s Accountant. It was written by 10 or so creationists (some from top tier science institutions like Cornell, MIT and Princeton), but Darwinists refuse to acknowledge it by saying it is unrealistic, whereas they celebrate Avida and Steiner which have no basis in biological reality whatsoever! With all the nasty comments about Mendel’s Accountant, the critics seem unwilling to actually write and publish software that has the “right” parameters, and not even that, they can’t point you to an existing simulation that materially disagrees with Mendel’s Accountant.His point is that Darwinism is wrong! According to Cordova, evolutionary biologists like Richard Dawkins don't understand evolution and the creationists were right all all along to question Darwinism.
The claim of this essay is that real evolution of populations as modeled by textbook population genetics does not conform to the Darwinian view, but rather the non-Darwinian view.
Cordova drives home this point in his next post [ Neutral theory and non-Darwinian evolution for newbies, Part 2], where he makes sure that creationists get credit for opposing Richard Dawkins ...
The present state of affairs is that both evolutionists and creationists with background in population genetics agree that IF we evolved, most of the traits became fixed without the influence of selection. Thus most evolution, if it is unguided and not front loaded, would essentially be random.Of course that does present a bit of a problem for creationists since some of their opponents have been arguing all along that there's more to evolution than just Darwinism. This led to a serious of posts where Sal Cordova assaults people like Richard Lewontin [Dawkins’s Vulgarization of Darwinism and Lewontin’s non-answers], and me [Recommending Larry Moran’s textbook without reading it].1 Denyse O'Leary jumps in by attacking PZ Myers [Did PZ Myers have anything to do with vanishing newspapers?].
These considerations contradict Dawkins’ claim: ...
Cordova also tries to regain the respect of his IDiot friends by accusing Chalres Darwin of plagiarism [Evidence of natural selection is not evidence against design, the Designer made NS].
- Darwinism; If the Idiots have been misinformed about evolution, which they have, then who is responsible and why were they misled by so many of their leaders?
- Social Darwinism: If evolutionary biologists really believe in Neutral Theory and random genetic drift then how can they be supporters of the evil consequences of nineteenth century Darwinism? What about all those posts where evolutionary biologists were compared to eugenicists, racists, and Nazis?
- Common Descent: This is a biggy. If Sal Cordova and the evolutionary biologists are right about the sequence differences between humans and chimpanzees, then it must mean that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. There will be no room under the big tent for Young Earth Creationists.
- Junk DNA: If Cordova is right then most of the stochastic substitutions in the human genome are neutral. This must mean that most of our genome is junk. Oops! That won't sit well with many creationists.
- Theistic Evolution:There's only one group that's more evil than materialistic scientists and that's theistic evolutionists. They are traitors. But if the IDiots actually were to accept the fundamental concepts of evolution, as Sal Cordova and Vincent Torely seem to be doing, then where does that leave Theistic Evolution Creationism? This cold be embarrassing when you look at all the posts on Uncommon Descent where theistic evolutionst have been mercilessly attacked.
I don't expect Denyse O'Leary to stop posting.
1. He points out that Micheal Behe has sold more copies of Darwin's Black Box on Amazon than copies of the latest version of my textbook. He quotes some negative reviews of my book from students on Amazon who were "forced" to use it in their biochemistry course.