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.
