Why Evolution is True, But Coyne is Wrong About Religion, Part III: Understanding the Limits of Methodological Naturalism

The Jerry Coyne debate reached temporary hiatus late last week with Coyne invokingRosenhouse to defend himself against my charge that he has violated the methodological vs. philosophical naturalism distinction. Coyne doesn't appear to think he commits this foul; and yet he writes in The New Republic, in a line not quoted by Rosenhouse, that "supernatural phenomena are not completely beyond the realm of science." Say what? If you accept the MN/PN distinction as I have outlined it, or as Robert Pennock does in Tower of Babel, it is hard see how one can claim this. As Pennock writes: