Jerry Coyne has written a post entitled, Double Accomodationist Fail. In it, he mocks Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins for criticizing others who use God-of-the-gaps reasoning when they themselves use God-of-the-gaps reasoning.
Of course, Coyne is an expert at criticizing others who use God-of-the-gaps reasoning when he himself bases his atheism on God-of-the-gaps reasoning. Coyne tells us he would be a theist if only there was some scientific evidence. But alas, there is none. What’s that you say? What would he count as evidence for God? He told us:
There are so many phenomena that would raise the specter of God or other supernatural forces: faith healers could restore lost vision, the cancers of only good people could go into remission, the dead could return to life, we could find meaningful DNA sequences that could have been placed in our genome only by an intelligent agent, angels could appear in the sky. The fact that no such things have ever been scientifically documented gives us added confidence that we are right to stick with natural explanations for nature. And it explains why so many scientists, who have learned to disregard God as an explanation, have also discarded him as a possibility.
Yet it never occurs to the professor to explain WHY such things would count as evidence for God. Clearly, Coyne would count these as evidence simply because they would be gaps. He is a god-of-the-gaps atheist. After all, what if scientists came up with purely naturalistic explanations for these phenomena? Would Coyne still consider them to be evidence?
So not only is his atheism ultimately a subjective opinion, it is an opinion propped up by god-of-the-gaps logic. And neither he, nor any of his acolytes, have ever noticed their position is built on such a fatal flaw.