Probably because Wallace retreated back to religious mysticism. Have you noticed that the YEC'ers always attack Darwin rather than the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis?
Darwin is prominent because Darwinists continue to worship him, thus justifying a critical response. But you are simply ignorant when you imagine that criticism of modern schools of evolutionary thought are lacking.
Try actually reading some creationist literature some time and you will discover this. Oh wait, you already said you prefer ignorance on that point.
Anyway, the notion that there is a 'modern evolutionary synthesis' is a joke. Coming unglued at the seams is more like it. Ask any two (much less more) evolutionists to detail this so-called synthesis and you will soon see my point.
>>>Probably because Wallace retreated back to religious mysticism. Have you noticed that the YEC’ers always attack Darwin rather than the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis?<<<
IMHO, Darwin is a well-known face upon which people can project their dislike of the idea of evolution, in the same way Sarah Palin has become a well-known face for the left to project their dislike of conservatives. Wallace was never given the recognition he deserved for his work, and he’s faded into the woodwork, so to speak, but his early work was as influential as Darwin. However, if someone would speak about a “Wallacite” view of the world, the speaker would also have to explain who Wallace was and what he did, and that would certainly suck the air out of that balloon.
Expanding knowledge of the universe has always been unnerving for most people, starting with the knowledge that there were other humans over the hill and moving along to other countries, continents, planets, galaxies, relativity, quantum mechanical properties, and, for all we know, additional universes. Every new scientific relevation puts me in utter awe of God’s creation and only bolsters my faith in God. Maybe I’m just stupid.