“not incompatible”—as long as you define ‘law of nature’ in a useless way.
Another “oh no! teh scientizmz!” post. As usual, the best rebuttal already exists in the form of Scott Alexander's I Myself Am A Scientismist essay.
Broussard here starts off badly by attacking a strawman. The idea that the disciples stole Jesus' body and made up the resurrection story is not something that anyone necessarily needs to take seriously. It is more likely as an explanation of an empty tomb than an actual resurrection would be—people involved in founding religious sects often do engage in frauds, just see Joseph Smith for an example—but we don't have any particular reason to believe that there was an empty tomb at all, even assuming Jesus did exist as a historical person. If there were strong evidence for an empty tomb, then we would have to consider the question of how that happened.
But even so, Broussard's argument is remarkably weak.