Pretty much, yeah. Okay, that's putting it a bit too harshly in his case, but calling him something a bit milder like a "crank" wouldn't be at all inaccurate.
Do a Google on his name, skip the fawning creationist websites (they love anyone who "bucks the evolutionist party line", even if he still espouses Darwinian evolution as Feduccia does), skip Feduccia's own personal pages, and most of what you're left with is pages of folks pointing out Feduccia's many mistakes on the subject.
For example:
The problems with The Origin and Evolution of Birds. Discussion of the problems with hypotheses made by Dr. Alan Feduccia in his new book on bird evolution, plus general discussion on the dinosaurian affinities birds.
He literally wrote the book on avian evolution.
ROFL! He wrote *a* book on avian evolution (*his* book). That's not the same thing as being the person who wrote "the book" on a subject, i.e. the person who established the field in a way that all others follow.
He's not alone.
You're right, there's *one* other prominent guy who feels the same way (Miller). But the *pair* of them are alone...
The disagreement among evolutionists are there because it's not like math and chemistry where the answers are obvious and testable.
No, it's because there are always a few cranks in any field. Make it worth my while and I'll go find you some folks who sign on to "2+2=5" and "there's carbon in a water molecule" too.
The difference is that anybody who believes that 2+2=5 won't get scientific papers published. Peer review and testing will quickly establish that there are serious problems with their hypothesis. Not so with evolutionists who stray from the camp. Generally they go against a consensus of opinion, not against established facts. Can you see why evolution is falling out of favor? Evolutionists not only attack non-evolutionists, but they also attack eminently qualified scientists who disagree with the idea that is currently in vogue.
I'm bookmarking this thread just for your posts.
Very nice!