Justin Taylor: "5 Areas of Science that Pose Problems for Evolution"

Nothing new here, of course, but Justin Taylor is Executive Publisher for books at Crossway and a blogger with many readers. This appeared recently at The Gospel Coalition:

It does provide a convenient summary of a popular stance.

As a systematist, I’m particularly offended by #4.


Wow that’s bad. Kent Hovind-level bad.


Indeed. Total PRATT-stream territory.

1 Like

I’m quite offended by 3

Keep in mind Taylor didn’t come up with those himself. They’re a direct copy from the Discovery Institute’s nonsense here.

Questions about Scientific Challenges to Darwinian Evolution

Reads just like a YEC page from Ken Ham or some equally scientifically clueless boob. Still the DI wonders why it has the reputation it does. :roll_eyes:

1 Like

Yes. Even though Taylor says that in the very first sentence of the blog, I should have reiterated that in the OP.


The DI may SAY it wonders why it has the reputation it does. But the DI surely doesn’t wonder at all. The fraud there is so transparent that I would think the only thing they’re wondering is just how much more gullible their donor base will turn out to be.

1 Like

Michael Behe must be, as well. So I look forward to the many books, articles and videos he will now produce explaining, for the benefit of his fellow DI members, why common ancestry is true.

Why is “unsolved mystery” a problem? I’ve written my share of grant proposals and they can all be summed up as "We don’t understand X. Give us money.’


But the “top 5” are supported by quotes! Who relies on evidence when a perfectly good out-of-context quote is available?


No irony meters please. So unfortunately often, one can tell the weakness of evidence from the strength of unsubstantial rhetoric.


Are you suggesting my use of that quote was misleading? If so, how was it?

On the contrary, my intention was to draw attention to your good catch, the Discovery Institute statement to the effect that the author is positioned to have the best perspective on their work, to highlight the irony of the habitual quote mining practiced by the DI in complete disregard for the author’s perspective. That the DI utilizes such rhetorical flourish as a deflection from real analysis suggests the actual evidence for their case is weak.

OK, no problem. Just thought it was a bit ambiguous. :slight_smile:

1 Like