Dean Esmay never replied to my post explaining why ID should not be taught in science classrooms, but in checking back at his blog for a response I’m beginning to think that the real problem is that he just doesn’t understand evolution well at all. For instance, notice this post, where he says:
Scientists thing they have found a way that mutation can drive rapid evolutionary change. That flies in the face of most evolutionary theory, which tends to hold that mutation is not the primary way by which creatures evolve. But from studying dogs, they think they may have identified how it might work.
That statement just doesn’t make much sense. Where could he possibly have gotten the idea that evolutionary theory holds that mutation is not the primary way by which creatures evolve? Mutation is the primary source of genetic variation upon which natural selection can act. The article that he links to simply talks about a particular type of mutation, one that occurs in tandem repeat sequences rather than at a single point to change a single nucleotide sequence. The study purportedly shows a link between tandem repeat sequence mutations and fairly rapid change in phenotype appearance. There is nothing the least bit revolutionary in that, certainly nothing that “flies in the face” of evolutionary theory.
Mutation in tandem repeat sequences is well known and has been for decades, as has the fact that those sequences tend to evolve at a higher rate than single point mutations. Finding more detail about how such mutations would influence traits in the phenotype is precisely the sort of research that continues to produce verifiable explanations for those aspects of evolutionary history that are still mysterious, and there is absolutely nothing there that is in conflict with evolutionary theory at all.