My understanding is it's done to emphasise the resurrection. The infinite importance of the resurrection logically means it is the only miracle (lest it be sullied by other miracles, I suppose). God would have no need to do multiple miracles - anything he wants done can be done in one fell swoop.
Unless they are going to redefine miracle, to say that the Resurrection of the only miracle requires the person making that assertion to ignore the testimony of the New Testament. That an atheist would do that is not surprising, bust somebody calling himself a Christian can hardly take the New Testament as an optional extra.
Even if it's illogical, there is a tantalizing nugget of logic in it all.
How does "illogical" manage to equate to logical?
Hmm, I'm not so such. Modern science, the community, the method, even the Enlightenment itself, was born out of the attempt by Creationists to provide solid empirical backing for the events in the Bible.
The Enlightenment was probably the direct result of the Thirty Years War. After the Treaty of Westphalia, the feeling was abroad that there had been enough religious conflict, and from now on sweet reason was going to rule the world - until the violence and irrationality of the French Revolution put an end to that naive idea.
Modern science had its origin in an attempt to uncover the laws by which God ruled the universe. Nobody had apologetic motives, because they were still in an age when the existence of God was more or less taken for granted. The earliest attempts were none too scientific - they just had the vague intuition that laws ordained by God must be out there somewhere..
A scientific critique of the Bible predates the early 1900s, I think.
The "scientific" critique of the Bible attempted by people like Bruno Baur was motivated by the "in thing" of his own day, which was philosophical idealism. Nobody, conservative, liberal, or otherwise, pays much attention to him today. Although things like the Theory of Evolution were not incompatible with Christianity - more than one of Darwin's collaborators were devout Christians - it did help to create an atmosphere in which theologians started to panic at the beginning of the twentieth century. Science was the coming thing, nobody was much interested in what they had to say, and they wanted to be "relevant".
The theologian Karl Barth famously started off as a liberal. Then, during the carnage of the First World War, he stood in his pulpit, with the Bible open before him, and discovered that all his erudition left him with nothing to say to his congregation. Subsequently he became much more conservative, although American fundamentalists still regard him as having been a liberal through and through.
I would say that Western music theory and formal notation are quite clinical and scientific treatments of the art, and have been around for a long time. Contrast a carefully composed aria to more 'folksy' music, or the intricately crafted violin to the banjo.
If music is governed by something analogous to Einstein's Field Equation, perhaps we should feed it into a computer, and wait for it to cough out a symphony.
