Not Fair! Science is being too… Sciency!

In a post I made a few weeks ago, I talked about the American Psychological Association declaring that there is no evidence that homosexual people can undergo “therapy” and suddenly become heterosexual. I said that I would wait to hear about the experimental procedures and controls before making my judgments on the other “study” put out by Exodus International.

My prediction was that it was going to be a pseudo-scientific crock, put on by a bunch intellectually dishonest crackpots. Guess what! I was right!

An article has recently been published covering a bit more on the statistics and procedures used in this scientific study piece of propaganda. Just one glance both the setup and results and you can tell it’s nothing but a fraud aimed at misrepresenting reality to further their ridiculous beliefs.

The so-called “psychologists,” Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse spend their time ignoring results and doctoring them up to look how they want. Scientific method be damned!

In the results, they claim an amazing 53% success rate. This 53% is made up of 23% who report “a successful conversion to heterosexual attractions” and 30% who report living a celibate life.

Hidden in the article are the real errors which would cause even your freshman pscyh student to realize that the study belongs in the garbage heap (there’s too much filth to attempt to recycle this one.) Let’s just review a few of the HUGE flaws:

-Incredibly small sample size: 61. Just try passing this off as anything but a fluke with a sample size of this low degree (even if the other controls held up. Wait… what controls??).
-The results (yay, inferential statistics!) fail to include the fact that 37 of the original subjects dropped out and would have nothing to do with the “researchers” after that. Maybe 38% of the original total dropping out looked too bad for their cause? It is briefly mentioned later in the article, but obviously not calculated.
-Controls? What are those? The article makes no mention of any controls put in place. In a test like this, you are never going to come close to causation. You can barely even legitimately hint at correlation. What are the circumstances in the peoples’ lives? What exactly does this “therapy” include? Etc.
-30% of the people claim to be celibate. For how long? It could be like claiming to be a vegetarian in between meals of delicious, juicy steak. Besides, repression is such a wonderful thing! I’m not a fan of this suggestion by the APA in the first place, I’m not buying into it now from these crackpots.

The most amusing part? The quote at the end of the article by Jones:

“They selectively apply rigorous scientific standards,” he said. “So when it comes to examining the evidence that sexual orientation change can occur, they apply extraordinarily rigorous standards, and those standards allow them to disregard significant evidence that sexual orientation change can occur. That’s what happens with our study. They, I think, invalidly applied several methodological concerns to dismiss our study.

Yes, that’s right! Science is being too much like science! It’s applying the scientific method! Controls? Methodological procedures? Bah! Science clearly needs to leave room for multiple, frivolous variables to affect the data! Sampling error is just a fairy tale.

“When the evidence goes against the view they’re expressing, they apply strong scientific standards. And when the evidence goes with the views they’re expressing, they’re considerably more accepting.”

When the evidence goes against the view they’re expressing, they remove almost all scientific standards. And when the evidence goes with the views they’re expressing… Oh wait, that doesn’t happen.

Rep. Franks Catches FFRF’s Attention Too

It looks like Representative Trent Franks R-AZ has caught the attention of the Freedom From Religion Foundation as well. As a result of Congressman Franks’ hosting of ‘town hall’ meetings in a Pentecostal church in Kingman, the FFRF has put out an action alert urging people to write to him and let them know that they disapprove of his actions. Unfortunately, Franks has made his religious inclination rather apparent over the years and I don’t see any letters swaying him in the slightest.

I completely agree with the FFRF’s stance that hosting these town hall meetings in a church where people roll on the floor and babble like buffoons is extremely inappropriate.

A church is the last place voters and constituents should have to engage with or listen to a political representative. Not only does this alienate and intimidate non-Christian, non-Pentacostal, and nonbelieving citizens, it also suggests that Congressman Franks, as a Congressional representative, is attempting to establish Christianity as the state’s preferred religion.

Oh, Franks would surely love that.

As I said in my previous post about Congressman Franks, he has shown a track record of pushing his silly religion into the public sphere. He has attempted to pass many resolutions regarding the Christian religion including the one trying to get Obama to declare 2010 as the year of the bible and his Christmas Resolution. Franks also thought this little farewell to the vile and despicable Jerry Falwell was an appropriate speech for the house.

As I said, I do not believe writing to Congressman Franks will deter him in the slightest, but do follow FFRF’s suggestions to write to the local papers. With any luck, we can elect someone more appropriate to the office next time around, despite the district’s strong conservative leanings.

Honest Christian Rock?

One of my favorite foreign programs, the Australian show Chaser’s War On Everything has recent done a spoof of Christian rock bands. The accuracy of the lyrics is quite astounding.

Check out the video on Youtube.

They have already done an episode on all of those late night Christian shows that peddle their filth and guilt people into handing over their money.

Local Loons: Birthers & Bigots

It has come to my attention, two stories of people from my very own state that we should not be proud of. I had already planned on writing a blog post about these two very special people when an idea hit me.

I will be writing a continuing segment story called, “Local Loons.” This multi-part story will feature people around the state of Arizona who are worthy of being pointed out for the loons that they are. The more loons there are, the longer the segment runs.

To kick the segment off, I’ll start with the two people I referenced earlier.

---

First up, it seems that Arizona’s “favorite” U.S. Representative, Trent Franks, from Arizona’s 2nd district is joining in the idiocy that is the “birther” phenomenon. Franks already made me ashamed that he is a representative from my state a few months back when he co-sponsored the house legislation to urge President Obama to declare 2010 as the ‘Year of the Bible.’ According to the article (yes, it’s WorldNutDaily,) Franks is considering  a lawsuit over President Obama’s eligibility to serve as U.S. President.

This sounds like an excellent use of time. The state of Arizona, let alone the country, is certainly not in a huge deficit and passing outrageous cuts to funding of public education among many other things.

Representative Franks should take a hint from another Republican congressman from Arizona who has tossed aside the issue as asinine, Senator Jon Kyl.

---

Next up is an interesting story about a local bigot and hatemonger named Steven L Anderson. I  stumbled upon the story yesterday thanks to PZ Myers at Pharyngula.

Mr. Anderson (try to read that name without it being in Hugo Weaving’s voice inside your head) is the pastor of Faithful Word Baptist Church in my very own town of Tempe, Arizona. Recently, someone has compiled a 20 minute clip of some of Pastor Anderson’s recent sermons. Throughout the clip, the Pastor spews hatred and bigotry against gays, Barney Frank, President Obama, liberal churches and slugs (those poor, poor slugs).

Pastor Anderson does make sure to support his views of bigotry with a biblical backing. At one point condemns anyone who supports the death penalty for criminals, but not for homosexuals as hypocrites when he says,

“The same God who instituted the death penalty for murders is the same god who instituted the death penalty for rapists and for homosexuals, sodomites and queers!”

He also singles out Representative Barney Frank D-MA for the bailout and labels him a pedophile.

“Our country is run by faggots. You know who was the man who was the architect of the bailout? His name is Barney Frank, he is a pedophile…”

“That’s who just sold our country into fascism. That’s who just sold our corporations to the government. That’s who sold out our country, a faggot!”

He also goes on to criticize the United Methodist Church for being run by “a dyke and a faggot” and espouses how he hates President Obama (you don’t come across too many Christians who will say they hate a person rather than “their sin”) and believes he needs to be put to death.

People like Pastor Steven Anderson are a dark, revolting stain on society and should be informed that we will not tolerate their hatred and bigotry. I am all for freedom of speech and freedom of religion and do not think he should be legally obligated to refrain from attempting to spread such disgusting ideas, but society can and in my opinion has the responsibility to let such people know that this sort of behavior is not acceptable.

I encourage any of my local readers to respectably let this pastor and his congregation know that we do not want such filth in our community. If you plan to do so, please keep it civil. I am not encouraging any illegal or elicit actions against the church itself or any member of its congregation and would be greatly disappointed if any such behavior occurred. Be above the hate that they attempt to perpetrate.

(Full, unedited audio of Pastor Anderson’s sermons may be found: here)

It Has Been Awhile

Well, I have been pretty busy with life and haven’t had the time to make any posts on here. I figured I’d make a few posts in the next day or so to catch up.

While scavenging this internet for interesting articles the other day, I came across this little ditty about the American Psychological Association declaring that psychologists/psychiatrists should not tell gay clients that they can become straight.
The declaration comes after a two year research program that found that there is absolutely no solid evidence that any change in sexual orientation is likely through “reparative therapy.” In fact, the research found (as one could already assume) that such “therapies” can lead to depression, suicidal tendencies and other harmful psychological issues. Hmm, who would have thought that suppressing one’s personal identity and feelings to appease some imaginary sky daddy could be harmful?

As a student of psychology, I am glad that the APA has taken a positive stance on this issue. In my time, I have come across way too many so-called psychologists who would like to tell me that homosexuality is a mental disorder, rather than having anything to do with genetics. One woman in particular, a preacher,  comes to my campus and spouts such nonsense and touts her status as a psychiatrist. Such a disgusting example of appeal to authority usually has me quite upset over the obvious ignorance of her own field, one which I study.

The APA attempts to play a slightly accommodationist position in stating that they urge therapists to suggest celibacy or changing churches to one that accepts homosexuality. While I don’t necessarily approve of this (as I would suggest to just leave the whole fantasy world behind), I realize the point that the article makes when it says that unfortunately, faith is still a major part of some of these peoples’ lives and they aren’t just going to give it up.

“There’s no evidence to say that change therapies work, but these vulnerable people are tempted to try them, and when they don’t work, they feel doubly terrified,” Glassgold said. “You should be honest with people and say, ‘This is not likely to change your sexual orientation, but we can help explore what options you have.’”

You simply can’t reprogram people into being attracted to the opposite gender. Attempts to do so more often than not lead to even more confusion and dangerous repression. Rather than relying on an archaic book that questionably references the subject only a few times to dictate how run their sex lives, why not focus on reality?

Alan Chambers, President of Exodus International, is quoted as saying:

“It’s a positive step — simply respecting someone’s faith is a huge leap in the right direction,” Chambers said. “But I’d go further. Don’t deny the possibility that someone’s feelings might change.”

I don’t think he gets it. Respecting someone’s faith is a method of not alienating the person further and realizing that they hold these ideas very strongly. An attempt to tell them that they must give up their religion indefinitely will do no good for the person. They are already undergoing a very traumatic time and loss of faith at that point in time may not be the best route (or it could be the best, depends on the person). I personally think that it would make the most sense. What better way to cease having to repress feelings than to realize there is no all-knowing being that is policing your mind, ready to condemn you to hell because you were born with an inclination to the same gender?

Yarhouse and a colleague, Professor Stanton Jones of Wheaton College, will be releasing findings at the APA meeting Friday from their six-year study of people who went through Exodus programs. More than half of 61 subjects either converted to heterosexuality or “disidentified” with homosexuality while embracing chastity, their study said.

Oh goody! A research piece from a pseudo-scientific bunch of crackpots! I’m curious to see the numbers that they attempt to put out though. What proportion is “disidentified” as opposed to being labeled homosexual. What proportion actually establishes a lasting heterosexual relationship? I’ll reserve more judgments until I see the experimental procedures and controls, but I have a feeling I already have a good idea.

“Religious faith and psychology do not have to be seen as being opposed to each other,” the report says, endorsing approaches “that integrate concepts from the psychology of religion and the modern psychology of sexual orientation.”

Interesting approach. This is one part I definitely disagree with. Another of those NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria) areas again? Sure, if you ignore most of the the entire field and stick strictly to limited areas of cognitive psychology. If you actually take into account all the important aspects such as genetics, neuroscience, and the more expanded areas of cognitive and developmental psychology, I feel that it is quite the contrary. As a person which huge interest in psychology of religion, I would say this is a huge opposition to religious faith as well.

One part I definitely agree with is the ending quote from Wayne Besen:

“Ex-gay therapy is a profound travesty that has led to pointless tragedies, and we are pleased that the APA has addressed this psychological scourge,” Besen said.

Here’s hoping this can be expounded upon and more research done to combat the ignorance of the “gay therapy” zealots.

Don’t Think You Get Off Light, Islam

It seems that there has been a number of articles in the past few days that give a rather interesting perspective on the so-called “religion of peace.”

The first of the two, published in the Christian Post is about a Sudanese girls being beated for the unpardonable crime of wearing pants. Apparently, 20-30 Sudanese police officers performed a raid on a local restaurant. Upon entering, they encountered a number of supposedly Christian girls all wear… pants! Now, you wouldn’t think that this is such a tremendous outrage, but in Islamic Sharia Law, it is. The punishment for such preposterous pant wearing?

Under Sharia law in Khartoum, the normal punishment for “indecent” dressing is 40 lashes, a fine or both.

Seems perfectly reasonable. Yeah

In a similarly ridiculous story (although not as violent), 9 Christians were arrested for trying to convert Muslims to Christianity.  This story takes place in the the lovely country of Malaysia.

Proselytizing of Muslims by members of other religions is a serious crime punishable by prison in this Muslim-majority country, though the reverse is allowed. Muslims are not legally able to change religion.

Is it just me, or do they seem afraid of something?

Not that I’m supporting the Christian’s because their beliefs are in the same boat as the Muslims, but human rights outrank the argument over whose religion is has a better claim to reality (pro-tip: None).

Texas Wants To Rewrite Reality

In a continuation of three-ring circus that is the Texas School Board, it seems now they wish to completely rewrite all of reality to fit their narrow worldview. Not only have they injected creationist nonsense into the science classroom, but now they are attempting to rewrite the history books because some historical figures don’t match up to their gruesomely distorted view of reality.

Usually I just sigh in agony at the terrible atrocities many states attempt to force upon our children. This is usually the result of creationists or IDers attempting to force their way into the classroom and spew nonsense at impressionable minds. This most recent bit of news is even more disturbing. Not only do they seek to distort science, but now they seek to completely remove figures such as César Chávez and Thurgood Marshall from the history books because they don’t approve of them or they do not teach “good Chrisitan values.”

The article goes on to note:

The teachers’ recommendations are sent to the 15-member board of education, a conservative-dominated body that has authority to revise standards.

Here’s a good idea! Let’s let a bunch of socially conservative nitwits who are ignorant to the world decide what to teach our nation’s children.

A tidbit about the asinine reasoning behind the efforts:

The conservative reviewers say they believe that children must learn that America’s founding principles are biblical. For instance, they say the separation of powers set forth in the Constitution stems from a scriptural understanding of man’s fall and inherent sinfulness, or “radical depravity,” which means he can be governed only by an intricate system of checks and balances.

Yes, of course.  We must force Christianity down the throats of our children based upon some false argument from tradition.

I do give credit to the author of the article who aimed to represent both sides and noted:

But the emphasis on Christianity as a driving force is disputed by some historians, who focus on the economic motivation of many colonists and the fractured views of religion among the Founding Fathers. “There appears to me too much politics in some of this,” said Lybeth Hodges, a professor of history at Texas Woman’s University and another of the curriculum reviewers.

And further:

Some outside observers argue that curriculum analysts should be trained academics. “It’s important to have trained historians establishing the framework,” said David Vigilante, associate director of the National Center for History in the Schools at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Thank you. Rather than having biased crackpots decide what reality is, we should have scholars who know the facts and won’t inject their personal opinions into the situation.

The conservatives worry about multiculturalism. “Heaven forbid” that we teach our kids about anything other than White Anglo-Saxon Protestants.

Looks Like I Caught Their Attention

It has come to my attention that cdesign proponentsist Martin Cothran has been alerted of my blog posting and made a rather quick retort. It would appear that news travels quickly, especially when someone is pointing out the faults in reason put out by the overall intellectually dishonest ID crowd.

Throughout the post, Cothran misrepresents my views, denies me the ability to believe in the laws of nature and forgets the definition of the word suggest. Let’s just say that my pen name isn’t the only thing that Cothran consistently gets wrong throughout the entire post (It’s Lykeros, not Lyceros).

Cothran starts out by calling into question my ability to deny supernatural events such as miracles. He attempts to declare that my position is that I choose not to believe in such things because I have never seen such an event. While this may be a part of the reason, it is in no way the whole argument behind the reasoning. Part of the reasoning behind this position also has to do with the science behind it, which clearly Cothran lacks a great understanding of. We reject the virgin birth because we have studied genetics and biology and understand that humans reproduce sexually and that sexual reproduction requires gametes from both a male and a female. Additionally, we understand that asexual reproduction would result in genetically similar offspring, both genotypically and phenotypically. Thus, the only way a birth such as this would occur is if the laws of nature were violated. We can deny the resurrection in a similar fashion. We are aware that upon death, the body begins to decay. The heart stops beating and oxygen stops flowing through the body. As a result, cells begin to die (due to cessation of aerobic respiration), organs begin to decay, and rigor mortis (due to calcium ions leaking into muscle cells ), algor mortis (reduction in body temperature), and livor mortis (separation and settling of blood cells from serum) set in. There is simply no coming back from this 3 days later without another cessation of the laws of nature. Based upon this empirical evidence, it is silly to assume these other events which have never been objectively observed.

Cothran then goes on to use a courtroom analogy to attempt to downplay my position, but gets it all wrong. This is essentially his false generalization of my views:

Defense: Well, you see, Your Honor, the prosecution has called witnesses that saw the crime. But we have witnesses who didn’t see the crime, and furthermore, we have many more witnesses who didn’t see the crime committed than the prosecution can produce who did see it. You see, these are people who were present in circumstances similar to those which Mr. Simpson and his wife were in when the alleged murder occurred. And they never saw him murder his wife.

Little does he know, he set up a very good argument against his own position. My position (and the position of most atheists) is not that I can produce people who claim they’ve never witnessed such an event, but that we have empirical evidence that shows to the contrary and nothing but hearsay as evidence for these spectacular claims. Continuing along with the court room analogy, I now propose the following situation:

A courtroom case similar to before, not necessarily the same, as that is irrelevant. For the purposes of the anecdote, the side of miracles will be played by the prosecution and the side of science will, as per usual against superstition, play the defense.

Judge: Does the prosecution have any witnesses?

Prosecution: Yes, sir. We have this man who claims he saw the murder happen that night. He says he is certain that the defendant is the one who killed the victim.

(Witness goes on to testify that he saw the defendant in the act of murdering the victim.)

Judge:  And Defense, do you have any witnesses to support the innocence of your client?

Defense: Yes, sir. We have tons of witnesses. The thing is, they aren’t able to testify in the traditional sense. We have copious amounts of empirical evidence that leads to another man being the murderer.

(Defense provides countless amounts of empirical evidence to show that another man committed the murder. This includes DNA evidence, defense wounds, and fingerprints.)

Now, in this situation, what do you think the verdict will be? Not only will the defendant get a verdict of ‘Not Guilty,’ but the so-called witness may be charged with perjury. I was even being generous as most of the miracle claims come from nowhere close to first person sources. A more appropriate anecdote would have the prosecution’s witness hear about it from a friend of a friend of a friend.

After this abysmal anecdote, Cothran calls into question the laws of nature. I suppose I should I have been more clear when I made my original explanation about this. The way it was written can be viewed as something that I did not intend. The laws of nature (physical laws) are essentially a summary of certain empirical observations. These are simple, concise, explanations of the way the universe around us works. Many of these laws have mathematical proofs. Many can in fact be witnesses on a daily basis if you care to open your eyes to them. These are things that have been shown to be constant, universal, and unable to be affected by anything else.

Let me be more explanatory on my position. I should not have used the word ‘law’ I suppose, as the topic at hand did not discuss any of the physical laws of science. Rather, I should have used something more direct like ‘all scientific evidence.’  These miracle claims  are quite contrary to anything to not only all observed accounts, but to mathematical, biological, chemical, and quite often physical (ie physics) evidence as well. Thus in order for such claims to be true, you would need an event that violates all of this.

Much of Cothran’s response goes on to repeat the same concept already covered multiple times. The “you don’t have evidence it didn’t/can’t happen because all you have is experience that it hasn’t” bit. Claims that we only have evidence for natural laws because of their effects (disregarding symmetry principles and mathematical proofs obviously). He also claims that he believes in God because he has seen his effects. I’m sure this is along the lines of the usual “I’m just interpreting differently the same science you are looking at. “

Towards the end, Cothran accuses me of cognitive dissonance because he is unable to understand the concept of the word ’suggest.’

He defends the position that science “suggests the impossibility,” and then, only several paragraphs later, denies what he just said.

Yes, it suggests the impossibility. This is not an absolute claim and therefore does not contradict the statement that science does not proving anything. Additionally, by “not proving anything,” it is not meant that well then this other stuff is equally plausible. It simply means that it would violate certain philosophical principles to say that you can be certain about anything. Instead, science points to an increasingly likely situation. As previously mentioned in my last post on the subject, it is analogous to a mathematical limit.

As for his “all understanding” argument, I should say “all scientific understanding.” To say all common understanding would be a faulty claim because as by Cothran, most people believe in miracles. Similarly, most people have a severe lack of understanding of science, obviously including Cothran.

P.S. I’m enjoying this false dichotomy. I’d like to see Cothran’s arguments about miracles in other religions while trying to support the miracles of his own.

Suing The Supernatural?

Apparently, there is a family in Saudi Arabia attempting to sue a genie (aka Jinn) for harassment.

This low-down, evil-doing spirit has allegedly been making a raucous, stealing, and throwing stones to make the family’s lives living hell. Unfortunately for the family, these rascals are completely invisible or assume the form of humans or animals. Thus, there is just no way to apprehend this criminal and lock him up behind bars where he belongs.

The most amusing part? The local courts are investigating the situation to verify the accuracy of the claims.

I’m sure any western-world Christian will be scoffing at this amusing bit of news. All the while they will be completely accepting things such as ridiculous miracles, speaking in tongues, and Jesus/The Virgin Mary appearing in their grilled cheese.

I suppose the family should try asking the genie to go away as one of their wishes.

The Discovery Institute Is Still At It

It looks like those nitwits over at the Discovery Institute (more specifically Martin Cothran) are still up to their usual antics of arguing semantics and using faulty reasoning to sway people into feel sympathy for them. As usual, they provide atrocious arguments that even your average atheist would know is chock-full of garbage.

This time, they aim to criticize Jerry Coyne (and thus all “new atheists”) over the semantics of metaphysical, methodological and later philosophical naturalism.

To start off, Cothran sets up the idea that there are 3 groups, all vying for the right to duke it out with the always comedic IDers. These groups would be: The big bad “New Atheists,” the “accommodationists (accomodatheists)” and the theistic evolutionists. I certainly would not call it a competition to argue with the IDers (worst prize EVER), but rather a conflict between those groups over ideals. For the most part, Cothran spends his time stereotyping and putting words in the mouths of those stereotypes.

After these designations, he gets into his criticism of Coyne. The first quote of Coyne’s he uses he has no problem with. He summarizes Coyne by stating:

Fear not, he seems to imply, the naturalism you see is only a procedural rule for working scientists in the lab or out in the field.

No problem here.

He goes on to use the following quote of Coyne:

Why reject the story of creation and Noah’s Ark because we know that animals evolved, but nevertheless accept the reality of the virgin birth and resurrection of Christ, which are equally at odds with science? After all, biological research suggests the impossibility of human females reproducing asexually, or of anyone reawakening three days after death.

And responds with:

If there is no a priori naturalistic assumption in science, then how can these events be “at odds with science”?

There is no a priori assumption. The argument by Coyne is completely a posteriori. The argument is based on the scientific observations of similar events. We have never seen a human female produce asexually, nor have we seen someone raise from the dead a whole 3 days postmortem. Additionally, all biological research has shown that these events should be biologically impossible. Therefore, it would be simply silly to assume that it should happen, especially without copious amounts of evidence.

Immediately after, Cothran quotes Coyne once more  and then puts words in mouths by responding with:

In other words, he suggests, science is not inherently materialistic, and yet only materialists are true scientists — and this from a person who criticizes religious people for being irrational.

This is certainly not what Coyne was trying to get at. Coyne’s argument was that it takes a great amount of cognitive dissonance in order to be methodologically naturalistic inside the laboratory, then turn it off when you walk out of the lab. This  allows for things that the same person would deem rational inside the lab to fill their minds outside simply because a book or their feelings tell them they should.

He later continues with this little jolly:

So if those who believe in miracles already believe in the normal course of natural events, then why does Coyne consider it a blow to the belief in the miraculous to point to the normal course of natural events? If believers in miraculous events believe in the normal workings of nature, what exactly is it that makes them unscientific thinkers? Obviously Coyne does not think that a theistic scientist cannot competently perform an experiment in the laboratory or identify a new species of plant or work an equation properly just because he thinks that a man who claimed to be God was born of a virgin and rose from the dead over 2000 years ago.

It’s a blow to the belief in the miraculous because it requires a cessation of the natural laws in order to happen. This is something we have not objectively shown to happen as of yet. If you have some sort of objective, scientifically verifiable evidence for such an occurrence, then you are the first (you can even win money!). The believing in things that there is absolutely no evidence for makes someone an unscientific thinker.  I do not know of any atheists who believe you can’t be a scientist if you believe in God, after all there are a number of such scientists (theistic evolutionists as referenced earlier). It simply means that you use a double standard with your life. Inside the lab, you aren’t going to conduct an experiment under the idea of “this is what should happen, BUT if a magical fairy comes by and does this, the results will be different.” It is simply inconsistent to not carry the same logic over into the rest of life.

After this, he goes on to falsely criticize Sean Carroll by responding to a quote with:

Science never proves anything, says Carroll, except it proves that miracles don’t happen. The only place I can think of that this kind of reasoning makes sense is at New Atheist gatherings and on the pages of Alice in Wonderland.

Once more, Cothran shows his pure lack of understanding. Science does not ever prove anything. What it does do is show how probable things are, sometimes to an infinitesimally close point. Essentially, the probability equivalent to a mathematical limit. It doesn’t prove miracles don’t happen, it just says that by all understanding, they don’t.

My favorite part of the article is up!

Coyne and his fellow scientists may claim that they would only believe a miracle if they saw it with their own eyes, and that’s fine. For my part, I’ll only believe they would believe a miracle if they saw it with their own eyes if I saw it with my own eyes.

This is one of the great misunderstandings of atheists that I have come across. I do not know a single atheist who would deny the existence of a higher power (be it God or what have you) if a completely supernatural event (would have to be obvious, not possibly naturally explained) were to occur before them and be verified by others around them (have to rule out delusions of course!). On the other hand, I have very rarely encountered a theist who would be step down from their dogma for any reason. After all, faith supersedes logic and reason, right?

Cothran then tries to claim that denying miracles is unscientific (what??? I know.)

Of course it’s hard to conceive of how Coyne can adjudicate historical miracle claims which, practically speaking, are the only kind of miracle claims there ever really are. It certainly doesn’t cover Christianity’s miracle claims. And so, ironically, Coyne’s position in opposition to miracles commits the cardinal scientific sin: it is unfalsifiable.

When someone in history claims to have witnessed an exception to the law, particularly one performed by someone who was purported to have previously performed a number of them in public; and which was witnessed by hundreds of people; and which was supported by myriad documentary evidence — and when even the contemporary detractors, of whom there were many, never even appeared to contest it; one wonders then what “science” can profitably say about it.

Scientists, qua scientists, can’t say anything about whether these events were exceptions to natural laws precisely because they weren’t there to observe them.

When someone claims to have witnessed something supernatural (none of the thousands of religions other than Christianity claim this obviously), it was supposedly witnessed by hundreds (wouldn’t these people write this stuff down!? Zombies patrolling Jerusalem documented by only one person?), and multiple people wrote about it, it must be true! Even modern history shows that things like this can be fabricated. Look up some of the myths about even actual historical people such as Wild Bill Hickok. People intentionally fabricated myths which were later thought to be true.

So, because someone in the past has made claims about history, you are in no way able to say anything about them, because you weren’t there. Great! I’m going to start falsely documenting history and wreak havoc on the future!

The rules of historical research bear little resemblance to what is done in biology or chemistry or physics. Coyne can’t say history is “scientific” in his sense any more than he say religion is scientific.

I’m going to disagree. Sure, in the sense that we can’t test history first hand, it applies. We can on the other hand, analyze first hand accounts and physical evidence left behind (fossils, ruins, etc.). Religion on the other hand tries to claim this ability but falls WAY short.

Finally, Cothran claims this:

There are only two things anyone can say about any miracle. The first is that it can’t happen, and the second is that it didn’t happen — and neither one of these is a scientific statement. The first is a philosophical statement, and the second is a historical statement.

What about the other option? The scientific option that says that the miracle probably can’t happen. This is based upon a posteriori knowledge and scientific evidence that shows such events should not happen given the natural laws.

It really appears that Mr. Cothran has a lack of understanding of even the basic logic and of the scientific world. Unfortunately, I don’t doubt that this won’t be the last time that we have to muck through the terrible arguments of IDers such as him. I am still waiting for the Intelligent Design folks to develop an actual position.