Last week, we told you about an op-ed article in the Wall Street Journal stating that science is increasingly proving the existence of God's intelligent design. The story has brewed up such a storm between Christians and Atheists that several rebuttals, set out to both disprove and support the article's claims, have been written since the Christmas Day article was published.
"As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going," writes author Eric Metaxas in his controversial WSJ editorial. "In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn't be here."
The piece describes how renowned astronomers like Fred Hoyle have taken a look at the evidence against the big bang theory -- a term he originally coined -- and concluded that "a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics."
But several responses to that article have been published last week, including a retort from famed Atheist physicist Lawrence Krauss that he claims the WSJ refused to publish. Krauss has graced the pages of The Gospel Herald before when he called for the eradication of religion back in August. But in this recent letter, he lists four main points that he says disprove Metaxas' article.
"Religious arguments for the existence of God thinly veiled as scientific arguments do a disservice to both science and religion, and by allowing a Christian apologist to masquerade as a scientist WSJ did a disservice to its readers," Krauss wrote.
While that response should be no surprise as that of an opposing viewpoint, what is surprising is the response of prominent Christian and Jewish authors along those same lines.
Dr. Peter Enns, a biblical scholar writing for Patheos.com, argues that there are two main reasons why Metaxas' article falters. First off, Enns points out that "the notion that our theology - specifically, our understanding of God - is our sure starting point for deliberating about the relationship between science and faith." He cites his recent book, The Evolution of Adam, in regards to the fact that "we should not assume that how we think about God is the unmovable and firm starting point for further deliberations" and "pushing the boundaries of our understanding of physical reality might actually affect the kind of God we understand ourselves to be proving."
And his second point refers to the fact that we can't really stand behind God as a thing or a benig that "can stand under scientific scrutiny."
"God is not a 'being' whose 'existence' can be pointed out here or there," Enns says. "God is being, the ground of being, that by which all being, all existence, is made possible. That is the claim of the Christian faith and to fall short of that claim is to sell this God short."
Huffington Post contributor Rabbi Geoffrey A. Mitelman also has two main points to bring up against Metaxas' article in his own entitled, "Sorry, Science Doesn't Make a Case for God. But That's OK."
The first has to do with the constant changing of science and scientific theories and that relationship to an unfaltering Creator. "Science is in constant flux," Rabbi Mitelman writes. "New discoveries are made. New insights arise. New paradigms overturn previous ways of thinking. So if we base our religious outlook on scientific findings, what will happen to our theology when the science changes?"
And the Rabbi's second point has to do with the fact that we shouldn't conflate science and religion. "Science is a search for truth, while religion is a search for meaning," he says.
"I know that no matter what new scientific findings arise, I will never be able to prove it," the rabbi says. "Science won't help make that case for me. But that's OK. Because the most important thing is that I try to live it."