The Shroud of Turin is a unique object without parallel and is the subject of much controversy regarding its authenticity. It represents a modern-day encounter between science and religion, serving as a tentative bridge between what Stephen Jay Gould called non-overlapping magisteria. Some regard the cloth as proof of the resurrection of Christ. Not to diminish the gravity of this claim, if science is to be the arbiter of authenticity, then those who practice science must play by its rules. As has been extensively the case, proclamations and publications by those ostensibly in the scientific and religious communities with multiple letters after their names do not represent proof of authenticity. One notable example is the postulation of non-existent physics. One of my colleagues noted that there is a notable amount of "junk science" in play. Simply put, if God wanted an image there, it would simply be there, and there would be no need for an explanation that appeals to our intellect.

Furthermore, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. In this vein, the Shroud has not yet been rigorously proven authentic. Much evidence has been presented to the contrary, including the lack of mention in the Gospels, the lack of any provenance or chain of custody since the 1st century, and a radiocarbon date that aligns very closely with the historical date of its first appearance in France circa 1350. This is potentially a nail in the coffin of authenticity. There is much criticism within the Shroud authenticist community regarding the radiocarbon date, principally from those with prior belief in its authenticity. They argue that, assuming the sampling of the cloth was legitimate to begin with, random contamination is the culprit. What is astonishing is that this "random" contamination claim yielded a date from all three participating labs very close to the documented historical date of its first emergence. Now that is a miracle!.