Guess the Source

Hi Professor Hunter, It's not often that I say anything in defense of Professor Jerry Coyne, but I do think that in this case, you might have acknowledged that he is one of the more open-minded proponents of methodological naturalism. Regarding Coyne's two statements, you write:

The first statement delegitimizes supernatural explanations and the second statement is a supernatural explanation.

But Coyne, in writing that "supernatural explanations always mean the end of inquiry," was not claiming that supernatural explanations were scientifically illegitimate; he was merely expressing his opinion that in practice, they were sterile and unproductive. Here's how he put it in a November 8, 2010 post entitled, Shermer and I disagree on the supernatural :

I don't see science as committed to methodological naturalism — at least in terms of accepting only natural explanations for natural phenomena. Science is committed to a) finding out what phenomena are real, and b) coming up with the best explanations for those real, natural phenomena. Methodological naturalism is not an a priori commitment, but a strategy that has repeatedly worked in science, and so has been adopted by all working scientists. As for me, I am committed only to finding out what phenomena really occur, and then making a hypothesis to explain them, whether that hypothesis be "supernatural" or not. In principle we could demonstrate ESP or telekinesis, both of which violate the laws of physics, and my conclusion would be, for the former, "some people can read the thoughts of others at a distance, though I don't know how that is done." If only Christian prayers were answered, and Jesus appeared doing miracles left and right, documented by all kinds of evidence, I would say, "It looks as if some entity that comports with the Christian God is working 'miracles,' though I don’t know how she does it." ... Science can never prove anything. If you accept that, then we can never absolutely prove the absence of a "supernatural" god — or the presence of one. We can only find evidence that supports or weakens a given hypothesis. There is not an iota of evidence for The God Hypothesis, but I claim that there could be. (Italics Coyne's.)

Of course, I would already contend that we have evidence in spades that life was intelligently designed (see here ). A strong case can also be made on purely scientific grounds that not only the universe, but also the multiverse, was designed by an Intelligent Being (see Robin Colline' 2009 essay, The Teleological Argument ). That points to a supernatural Creator. Coyne apparently doesn't find the evidence persuasive; I would therefore say that despite his openness to the supernatural in principle, he has set the epistemological bar unreasonably high. Nevertheless, I commend Professor Coyne for his willingness to at least consider the possibility of a supernatural origin for life and the cosmos. vjtorley

OT: Ediacaran embryos in retrospect - David Tyler - January 28, 2013 Excerpt: "there is currently no convincing evidence for advanced animals with bilateral symmetry in the Doushantuo biota". This particular quest for animals preceding the Cambrian Explosion has drawn a blank. Needless to say, Darwin's dilemma remains in full force. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2013/01/28/ediacaran_embryos_in_retrospect bornagain77