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.