Fine tuning News

Re Eric Metaxas: Religion profs attempt to take back their swell racket

Spread the love

The Eric Metaxas story continues to whistle past the news desk. Briefly, in a paywalled article (which limited its distribution to the elite), religion scholar Eric Metaxas was allowed, on Christmas Day, to make the case for the fine-tuning of the universe in the Wall Street Journal. So far as we know, no one was attacked, beheaded, fined, or jailed over that and the  Journal was not shut down.

But the article did not sit too well with the Christian philosophy elite, who specialize in presenting Christians as dhimmis for Darwin (and naturalism, generally), in exchange for themselves being eaten last. Seemingly, they cannot find enough enemy command posts to surrender to.

So they struck back, defending their turf (essentially, people whose born-again experience does not seem to have included their brains).

Metaxas responded, of course. Meanwhile, over at Evolution News & Views, Casey Luskin noted,

The outburst is surprising, given that a source like Religion News Service is presumably at least neutral on religion, rather than scornfully hostile. But leave that aside. This is the typical rhetorical strategy from the media: claim that there is no credible scientific support for intelligent design, and bitterly attack those who deviate from the party line. The aim is to intimidate those who might speak out in support of ID in the future.

Grant wants you to believe that physicists who acknowledge the evidence for ID are few and far between, and are to be found only at “the fringe of science.” Yet that’s far from true. Consider what physicist Charles Townes said in 2005: More.

Of course it is not true. Consider, for example, what great physicists have said about immateriality and consciousness?

The money shot for them is keeping your community and mine from understanding the significance of design in nature. Ladling dollops of brain-absent “faith,” to the strum of guitars.

Same venue, Daniel Bakken discusses one of these dhimmis for Darwin recruiters:

Dr. Grant can be forgiven if he is not up to date on the fields of cosmology, astrobiology, and the anthropic principle, as he is a professor of political science and an editor, not a scientist in astronomy or cosmology. But his seemingly religious conviction that none of these could possibly ever point to God is disturbing, and should raise flags as to his biases. We all have biases, but that doesn’t mean we can’t identify them and objectively evaluate the data, something I submit that Grant doesn’t want you to do.

But why is this a big surprise? Nothing ever points to God unless the “religion expert” holds out a treat and demands that we bark. Having had a bellyful of these people, I would recommend: Bite. Shred trousers.

“And Bowser the Schnauzer bit down on his trouser … ”

See also: Copernicus, you are not going to believe who is using your name. Or how.

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

14 Replies to “Re Eric Metaxas: Religion profs attempt to take back their swell racket

  1. 1
    Upright BiPed says:

    in exchange for themselves being eaten last.

    chuckle chuckle


  2. 2
    Barry Arrington says:

    UB @ 1: Indeed. Our news desk can turn a phrase.

  3. 3
    awstar says:

    But why is this a big surprise? Nothing ever points to God unless the “religion expert” holds out a treat and demands that we bark. Having had a bellyful of these people, I would recommend: Bite. Shred trousers.

    No need to get all aggravated. Just turn to a better source of news than the US press.

    Such as: Science China Press.

    New evidence for anthropic theory that fundamental physics constants underlie life-enabling universe

  4. 4
    Andre says:


    Thank you for the link, China publishing papers on fine-tuning, and the West try and avoid it at all cost. Slightly off topic, I always use to get my knickers in a knot about the Chinese who unashamedly copies whatever they want, I have however learnt in the last while how this actually drives invovation, because those being copied needs to stay ahead at all times and the only way to do so is constant inovation and improvement.

    So I’ve become a fan of their copying tactics. As consumers we actually benefit.

  5. 5
    News says:

    Barry Arrington at 2 likely guessed that News was riffing Winston Churchill. News grew up in the shadow of Winston Churchill. Our classes in Grades Seven and Eight regularly wrote letters to him.

    Yes, the “eaten last” thing. Also. “We shall fight in the hills … but we shall never surrender”

    Because the Brits had Canada to fall back on, of course, and Canada had declared war on Hitler the same day. (Canada is bigger than you think it is.)

    And the United States was accidentally leaving really big time armaments – also accidentally – on the border 1939-1941, to be sort of accidentally picked up on the other side overnight, never followed up. (I have heard accidental eyewitnesses for this. I gather that, any time the Nazis complained, well, it was just a big accident. The kind of thing that happens in North America, you know. Cowboys, Indians, lack of eugenics, all that … )

    Churchill was justified in scorning sellouts, and *so are we.*

  6. 6
    rvb8 says:

    Because New Zealand is 12 hours ahead of Britain, and because the New Zealand Parliament new that Britain was going to declare war, the New Zealand parliament declared war on Germany 12 hours before Britain. Thus, for 12 hours it was NZ versus Nazi Germany, heh!:)

  7. 7
    Jon Garvey says:


    After Churchill’s famous “We shall fight them on the beaches” speech (with your quote) on the BBC, apparently the mic was switched off and he added off-air, “We shall fight them with beer bottles – that’s all we’ve got.”

  8. 8
    News says:

    Okay, rvb at 6, for 12 hrs, it was ANZACs vs. the Nazis. The Canadians were out with the horses at the time, but once they got back …

    Jon Garvey, yes, Churchill was fond of a glass for sure, but he did have a bit more than beer bottles.

  9. 9
    kairosfocus says:

    News, I think he was referring to the paucity of arms for land fighting after the Dunkirk pullout. Tanks and trucks gone, artillery lost, even the old .303 rifles were very short. The RN, the Hurricanes and Spitfires really were the last line. Summer 1940 was the hinge of fate, in their finest hour, and a very near run thing. But, Britain prevailed. Time to rise up and be that civilisation again. KF

  10. 10
  11. 11
    Axel says:

    @ Jon Garvey, your #7

    “We shall fight them with beer bottles – that’s all we’ve got.”

    Oddly enough, that’s what Bill Speakman VC, or so legend has it, did in Korea, though sadly he denies it.
    Even more oddly, he’s in today’s Daily Mail :

    He was spoken about with great warmth among us artillery lads many years later, as he was said to have been demobbed early for excessive drinking and habitually failing to return officers’ salutes. (They have to salute VCs. ) Although that, too. could be popular myth.

    A quote from a Daily Mail blurb :

    30 May 2012 – MIDDLE ROW Bill Speakman VC – fought off enemy fire in the Korean War in 1951 by throwing stones, shoes and beer bottles. Henry Flintoff …

  12. 12
    News says:

    kairosfocus: Yes. We must all be those nations again, as the world cowers in the face of Islamic terror (used to be Nazi terror – same terror, different logos). We cannot wait for the United States to get it.

    Let us all just start getting it now, as we did in the past.

  13. 13
    News says:

    Aurelio Smith at 13: Lots of people would love to hear your friend’s recollections, for history archives, if not now collected. Could you possibly contact the Canadian War Museum, to be put in touch with the correct persons?

    (It wasn’t easy for Canadians either. One person I know belonged to a squadron whose motto was “To the bitter end” [Usque ad finem])

  14. 14
    rvb8 says:

    News at 8. No,no,no, not the ANZACS, just NZ. Australia, as it does today follows who ever is in charge. Hence they followed the US blindly in 2003 into that continuing nonsense Iraq, and NZ said ‘sod off’, as did Canada i’m pleased to note! Hence, in NZ in 1989 we became ‘nuclear free’ and unlike Australia stopped inviting US Navy ships to our harbours, unless they openly stated that they carried nuclear weapons, which, for obvious reasons the US Navy refused to do.

    No, for 12 hours Canada and the world were protected by NZ, heh! 🙂

Leave a Reply