You remember our recent post, More Creationism in the Wall Street Journal, about that venerable newspaper’s sickening slide into the slime of creationism. We’re told that the Journal had so many hits they had to block access to the column. Even our humble post received almost 6,000 hits.
The attention the Journal column received wasn’t, of course, because it described scientific evidence of God — it didn’t, and there isn’t any. But it claimed otherwise because — and this is laughably absurd — because there are zero (or less!) chances for any life-supporting worlds in the universe. By coincidence, we saw this a couple of days ago at PhysOrg: Eight new planets found in ‘Goldilocks’ zone.
The reason that column in the Journal attracted so much attention wasn’t because of the non-existent science news, but because it clearly signaled the intellectual collapse of the Wall Street Journal‘s once splendid editorial standards. If they now feature creationism in their op-ed pages, one wonders how it it will be possible to rely on anything else they have to say.
The Discovery Institute is thrilled by the Journal‘s cognitive suicide because, as we described in our earlier post, the creationist author of that catastrophic column, Eric Metaxas, is a Discoveroid fellow-traveler. But the most important reason why they’re thrilled is because the Journal was a giant, and the intellectual collapse of the West is their highest goal — see Discovery Institute: Enemies of the Enlightenment.
Today the Discoveroids have a new post which gloats about the fall of the Journal. It’s titled A Christmas Gift that Keeps Giving: Lawrence Krauss on Eric Metaxas on Science, on God, written by David Klinghoffer, their journalistic slasher and poo flinger. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:
Truly a gift that keeps giving, that Christmas Day article by Eric Metaxas in the Wall Street Journal continues to stir discussion and denunciation (“Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God”). The appetite for debate isn’t surprising, given that it’s reportedly the most popular article ever published by the online WSJ, with 361,467 Facebook “likes” when I looked.
Yes, the article got a lot of hits, but Klinghoffer confuses morbid curiosity and enthusiastic delight. A lot of people watched the funeral of John Kennedy, but that doesn’t mean his assassination was a popular event. Then he says:
Well, much of the critical “discussion” so far has been irrelevant, it seems to me: either atheist and other censors saying the newspaper should never have published the piece, or, from more thoughtful quarters, theological and philosophical beefs that don’t seem to understand Metaxas was fundamentally drawing a scientific design inference. To that, whether he’s right or wrong, theology and philosophy really have nothing to say. The science shows what it shows.
[*Curmudgeon takes a few minutes off to run around with the dogs and clear his mind.*] Okay, we’re back. Let’s read on:
Nor is it germane to point out that Metaxas isn’t a scientist. He’s a layman presenting an argument based on science, to which a scientist or a non-scientist can respond as his own reason prompts.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Yes — an argument based on science. Which reminds us of what Mark Antony said in Act III, Scene 2 of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar:
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest–
For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men–
Come I to speak in Caesar’s funeral.
In the same sense that Antony spoke at Caesar’s funeral, we say at the Journal‘s funeral that Metaxas is a man of science. So are they all — all the Discoveroids — men of science.
Klinghoffer goes on a bit, “refuting” some criticism of the Metaxas column. Click over there and read it, if you like. We’re done here.
Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.