I have never, ever met a professional scientist who rejected the modern synthesis (i.e. that genes are the mechnaism of Darwinian inheritance, and that genetic mutation is the origin of inheritable variation). And I have regularly interacted with life scientists, both personally and professionally. For you to indicate that the "vast majority" of scientists you've met do reject it is frankly unbelievable.
Ah, science-by-consensus.
There was a time when the prevailing explanation for combustion was the phlogiston theory. Those "scientists" had consensus too. They were also quick to ostracize colleagues who raised scientific objections to it -- just as they have attacked a biochemist like Behe or a molecular biologist like Denton in more recent times.
Something like two dozen scientists recently came to the defense of the Cobb County Board of Education during the textbook "sticker" hearings. They were credentialed in fields such as microbiology, biochemistry and biophysics. Brave people. I can only imagine the abuse and insult they've since endured from their "colleagues in consensus."
What I'd like to know is this: How is it that you're more qualified to render a scientific opinion on biological matters than they are? Aren't you straying a bit out of your area of expertise?
I think he is referring to Kent Hovind. Anyone who can put "central tenets of evolution" and "recapitulation" in the same sentence is smoking something stronger than tobacco.
Chinese evolutionists don't seem to have the same reverence for Darwinism that you do.
Cordially,