Religion Backed by Science!

Well... No.
In this story on Reuters. Some people are claiming that scientific evidence (specifically carbon dating and molecular genetic analysis) has been used to prove that bones found in 2010 belonged to John the Baptist. He's the guy that supposedly dunked the head of Jesus under water (baptising him). Thus making him even more holy?

Anyway. They dated the bones to the first century CE (common era) which is when John the baptist would have died. And the genetic analysis concluded that the individual was most likely of middle eastern origin.

The first issue I have with this is one of how likely it is to be true based on probability and the evidence. One of the scientists is quoted as saying that it was 'obviously impossible to say with any certainty that the remains belonged to John the Baptist. But it could not be ruled out.' Yeah it cannot be ruled out in the same sense that you cannot rule out that there is an invisible, trans-dimensional dragon living in my apartment. You can't rule it out. But you have so little evidence for it and it is so incredibly unlikely. That for all practical purposes you consider it not true. The same is true with these bones. First, it is highly unlikely that the biblical John the Baptist existed at all. Secondly, there are thousands of individuals who were living at that time whose bones these could be. And thirdly, the evidence is so thin as to be almost non existent. So the evidence is too thin, and the probability so low, that for all practical purposes we can consider it to be false.

Then there is the issue of using science in an attempt to provide evidence. The two techniques used in this case are the same ones that provide evidence for the earth being more than 6000 years old (radio carbon dating), and that all species on the earth are related through the process of evolution (molecular genetic analysis). This is a wonderful example of how the religious mind subjectively screens and accepts information. On the one hand they want to deny that these two scientific disciplines are correct in the findings they make. That the earth is billions of years old and that evolution is a fact. Then on the other they want to use those same findings to support their claims when it suits them.

Now I'm not saying anyone involved in this particular case is a science denying young earth creationist. But think about this. If the analysis had shown that the bones were older than 2000 years. Do you think they would have immediately accepted the fact that they were not holy relics and announced this to the world? I don't think so. First because they would have lost all the income they are currently enjoying from pilgrims coming to visit the bones. And secondly they would be setting a dangerous (from the religious view point) president where scientific facts are valued over faith.