Um, where do you get that he's a young earther??? Doesn't even suggest that anywhere in your link.
The extended quote suggests that John Sanford, however clever he may be otherwise, is quite the Drama Queen. He goes on about about challenging, in great fear and trepidation, the “The Primary Axiom” that evolution is nothing but random mutation plus natural selection! Geeeeze! How silly is that?! Not even Darwin believed this supposed "Primary Axiom". Hardly anybody does. I suppose there have been a few (actually VERY few) "hyper selectionists" who have come close. Well, actually I can't think of even a single scientist who thinks that natural selection is absolutely the ONLY evolutionary mechanism.
I got it from another discussion I was in on this issue.
And we all knew that if he doesn't believe in Darwinism, he isn't a *real* scientist, doesn't really understand evolution, is damaged goods, etc etc etc...
You're correct, I was about to make the same comment myself after reading what he wrote, but then I saw that you beat me to it.
Whatever other competence this guy may or may not have in the field of science, he's clearly completely clueless when it comes to evolutionary biology (which, frankly, has been my experience with every single anti-evolutionist to date).
He writes:
Modern Darwinism is built on what I will be calling “The Primary Axiom”. The Primary Axiom is that man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection. Within our society’s academia, the Primary Axiom is universally taught, and almost universally accepted. It is the constantly mouthed mantra, repeated endlessly on every college campus. It is very difficult to find any professor on any college campus who would even consider (or should I say – dare) to question the Primary Axiom….This is, in short, completely idiotic. Anyone who actually has the slightest familiarity with evolutionary biology knows that not only does evolutionary biology encompass more than just "random mutations plus natural selection". For pete's sake, as even Darwin himself wrote in the 1872 edition of On the Origin of Species:
"As my conclusions have lately been much misrepresented, and it has been stated that I attribute the modification of species exclusively to natural selection, I may be permitted to remark that in the first edition of this work, and subsequently, I placed in a most conspicuous position—namely at the close of the Introduction—the following words: "I am convinced that natural selection has been the main but not the exclusive means of modification." This has been of no avail. Great is the power of steady misrepresentation."Apparently Sanford is 134 years behind in his reading on this subject. This does not inspire confidence in his ability to add anything of value to this subject, if he's so ignorant as to think that evolutionary biology involves only mutations and natural selection...
He additionally parrots the usual mantra of the more ignorant anti-evolutionists when he claims that no one would "dare" question the axioms of evolutionary biology. This is utter idiocy -- anyone who bothers to actually read the science journals relating to evolutionary biology knows full well that it gets questioned all the time. That's the very nature of scientific research, and even the most basic tenets of evolutionary biology -- and everything else in science -- gets questioned, tested, challenged, and otherwise beat on all the damned time.
So I repeat -- on this subject, at least, Sanford is an idiot. But then, that seems a requirement for anti-evolutionists. I have yet to meet one in my 30+ years of involvement in this subject who didn't reveal his incompetence on this subject in very short order. And yes, that includes Dembski, as well as Coulter's recent pack of falsehoods on the subject.