Having lived overseas for most of my adult life, and being a fan of several other Eric Metaxas books, I ordered a copy of his biography of William Wilberforce, called Amazing Grace. I have been plagued with a question since my return from the fields, and I felt Wilberforce’s story might offer me some clues and insights into my struggle. I was not disappointed.
If you are not aware of whom I speak, and why the mission and testimony of his life is so relevant for us today, let me preface by saying that William has that rare distinction of being a bona fide and first class world-changer. How many in human history can boast of abolishing a practice as grotesque as it was long, stretching back for more than five thousands years, as Wilberforce can? How many would be so singularly driven, relentless and resilient, in expending every ounce of energy and click of time for a period of forty-six years in pursuit of a political, sociological, and moral victory? And yet, the battle that William undertook until final victory in 1833—no less than 72 hours before he breathed his last breath—was this: the abolition of slavery throughout the entire British Empire.
America’s own story of emancipation would, sadly, not be so bloodless. And yet, Wilberforce’s lifelong struggle was a backdrop, an inspiration, and a trailblazing for Lincoln and all those who were in his shadow. His life was a lighthouse. He was the first to plant the freedom flag for the enslaved. His memory must be enshrined, his quintessence broadcast, his mantle taken up.
The question that has deeply bothered me can be best captured in a single word: Compartmentalized. After living among and laboring beside our Asian brothers and sisters in Christ for so many years, witnessing their focus, their all-out devotion, their unwavering commitment to Kingdom purposes, I found myself muddled by the immense distractions in our own faith journeys in the West. It confuses me to observe springs being a source of both fresh and bitter waters at the same time (Jam 3:11).
As a Christian, I wondered: is it possible to dance with the devil of politics and not have two left feet? What about the rhetoric that religion and politics don’t mix? What about the warnings that churches, or pastors, should not be too political? When foolish, or evil policies paralyze or endanger communities, why would we feel compelled to silence or distance ourselves. In the face of injustice and blatant disregard of basic human rights, are we to disengage while the wolves range freely? Are we following the Lion of the tribe of Judah, or the ostrich?
Wilberforce definitely did not compartmentalize. In Metaxas’ other top-shelf biography about Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a pastor is compelled by the Spirit to enter the fray of politics in order to oppose the wickedness of Hitler. In Amazing Grace, it is the politician who in the Name of Christ and for His glory takes on the entire establishment of the premier superpower in his day, the British.
It almost did not happen. After William’s radical conversion, he wrongly assumed he should lay down the sword in the public arena. This was expected. He thought his duty was to pray for change, and leave the results to God and to the government. Fatefully, before Wilberforce resigned from Parliament to pursue “spiritual things”, he met the very man who wrote the hymn, Amazing Grace. So it is in this quote that the light burst forth upon my quandary:
“Newton didn’t tell him what he had expected—that to follow God he would have to leave politics. On the contrary, Newton encouraged Wilberforce to stay where he was, saying that God could use him there. Most others in Newton’s place would likely have insisted that Wilberforce pull away from the very place where his salt and light were most needed. How good that Newton did not.” Pp. 59-60
So unlike so many in Christian leadership who compartmentalize, claiming a spiritual high ground with platitudes like “we are called to preach the gospel”, or “our kingdom is not of this world”, Wilberforce entered the trenches of politics and never looked back. And it is a good thing he did: it is frightening to think of how many more millions of Africans would have continued to be brutalized and enslaved, and for how long.

For many of us, the “scientific” jostling that has characterized the masking debate has been, quite ironically, a veritable unmasking of…science. We were raised to think of chemistry and physics as “neutral”, objective. The men and women in their lily white lab coats were our modern monks–if not saints–conducting their experiments with devotion and unbiased rigor. We were led to believe their sacrifices were all for our benefit! Who would have thought so many of their cloaks are lined with corruption and greed?

Well, the curtain has been ripped open in Oz-like fashion, unveiling a feverish flurry of button-pushing and lever-yanking going on backstage. Enough with the shenanigans! The ruse has faced its comeuppance. The game ends now.

Obviously not all science is like this. But it turns out “gain of function”, virus manipulating experiments, are not the only 21st century Frankensteins that have been conjured up. In truth, an active “virus” with its innumerable mutations and variants has been infecting the academic and science community for many years. To avoid this virulent contagion, we need an injection of truth serum. Ask Eric Metaxas.

On Christmas, 2014, Eric penned the unofficial “most popular article in Wall Street Journal’s history”, entitled Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God.* In it, he reveals a masking that has been going on very much in spite of, even contradicting, “the science”. Briefly, in it he writes: “Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart…The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing. Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing.” The reaction to this article inspired Eric to begin a seminal work on this subject which has recently been published. It’s called Is Atheism Dead? I have just finished the book and offer some of my takeaways here.

First of all, the title Eric chose may have a familiar ring to it since it is a direct challenge to the audacious title, “Is God Dead?” on Time magazine’s April 8, 1966 cover. This was a convoluted attempt by a consortium of scientists and journalists to squelch all the God “fairy tales” that stubbornly wouldn’t evaporate despite their heated claims of “undeniable proofs” to the contrary.

Only now are we discovering that “fake science” has been running neck and neck with “fake news” in the Deception Derby.

Eric points out that the hounds on the loose in 1966 have lost their scent. They’ve been outfoxed by the evidence, yet continue to stubbornly point to a faint Darwinian whiff somewhere back at the Genesis of the hunt. The trail has uncovered uncomfortable facts, and the evolution of the quest has led to an embarrassing discovery: the beagles have converged on a forest clearing where sits an ancient cross-crowned chapel. God was still breathing afterall!

With dogged tenacity, Metaxas follows the science into the fields of physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, and archeology. He discusses the vastness and complexity of the universe but also quotes from Dr. James Tour, the world’s premier nanoscientist, about the universe-like characteristics being studied in a single cell. He quotes from famed debater Christopher Hitchens that the most troublesome subject for atheists is what is formally called the “fine-tuned argument”. And precisely because of science, their ability to refute the facts and math of the intelligent design features of our earth and the universe have left them swimming in a shark-infested sea of contradictions.

Take for example this quote from Stephen Hawking: If the overall density of the universe were changed by even 0.0000000000001 percent, no stars or galaxies could be formed (p. 56). Or how about astrophysicist Hugh Ross’s quote: the entire mass of the universe could not deviate by the mass of a single dime? (p.60) But Eric points out that “density” and “mass” factors are only two of a whole string of math-boggling aspects of our fine-tuned universe.

Then he extrapolates this to the long list of immovable conditions about earth that are calibrated just right for life to exist. For instance, there are at least twenty-two elements (oxygen, hydrogen, iron, etc) that are needed for life to be possible. We “just happen” to have all of them, and in the exact amounts and proportions needed in order to sustain life. Life would also be impossible if the earth was even minutely smaller or slightly larger, nor could we survive without the moon being exactly as it is in terms of size, distance from us, etc. How fascinating to learn as well that we’d be doomed–demolished by asteroids–if Jupiter was not exactly as (and where) it is, too.

Then Metaxas digs into the arguments from archeology, where “the Bible is confirmed by every turn of the spade” (p.120). Catastrophically disconcerting for naysayers, the evidence from virtually every archeological site has conclusively supported the Biblical account; so much so that James Agresti, who set out to disprove the Bible, was soundly persuaded instead. The nail in the proverbial coffin for him was the enormous mound of evidence unearthed by the gravediggers. He confessed: “I have yet to encounter archeological evidence that shows any part of the Bible to be inaccurate” (p.120). The chapter (18) on the details of the excavation of the 3,700 year old city of Sodom, including shards of pottery that had been glazed at a temperature of 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit, was the most compelling for me.

I will close with the words of yet another agnostic scientist, Robert Jastrow, who surrendered to a tsunami of evidence for a Creator that has been amassed since Time’s ill-timed Is God Dead? article. He writes: “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries” (p.34).

An honest editor would recant and offer profuse apologies for his ill-fated 1966 article. Again, if honesty prevailed, what a delight it would be to see Eric Metaxas book title, Is Athiesm Dead? now iconically gracing Time’s cover. 

* https://inters.org/files/metaxas-science-increasingly.pdf

I have just finished reading a book from which I quote below called Heretic. The timing of my read coincided with one of the most public and harmful indictments upon the scientific community that the world has seen in recent memory: the Coronavirus Wuhan lab hoax. Both the news and the book present a perspective that only a few years ago I had very little awareness of; namely that there is a collusion and corruption that is at work which undermines the credibility of the mainstream science community as a whole. I use the word mainstream very intentionally here, because the same indictment could similarly be levelled against the media establishment. Let me explain.

The common denominator in both the media and science spheres is that neither is any longer invested in truth seeking. Outcomes, whether conceived in laboratories or newsrooms, are predetermined and pre-approved. They are pursued and then judged, not on the basis of fact, but primarily for two reasons: to support ideology or guarantee ongoing profitability. Facts in these worlds are either massaged to align themselves with narratives that are uncompromisingly adhered to, or suppressed and ignored when they are considered to be a departure from “orthodoxy”. And this is not a passive stand. Truth can be so inconvenient that it can be deemed a threat, leaving these communities with a penchant for maligning and perverting truth when it gets in their way.

So two cases in point which are windows into these corrupt practices are the Steele Dossier which was carefully crafted then coordinated with other “partners” to give the false impression that there was corroboration of the story when there was none (the same could be said of the Nick Sandmann/Covington School narrative and many, many others); and there is the spate of emails being released about Dr Fauci and other science “experts” in their campaign to cover up the evidence pointing to coronavirus being genetically altered.

These perversions can poison elections (which in turn affect everything that occurs afterwards) as was the fallout from the media/big tech cabal’s scandalous meddling; or they can poison the whole range of scientific research and enquiry, as is the case with mafia-like stranglehold that evolutionists have on “heretics” like Leisola, Witt, Behe, Meyers, and so many others who are outstanding intellects in their disciplines. Tragically, though their research truly follows the science, by challenging the blatantly false and irrational tenets of the zealots in the science establishment, they are left out standing in their fields (pun intended)–stigmatized, patronized and unfunded.

Heretic was the perfect name for this book. One gets the feeling the “bishops” on the evolution side would not hesitate to tar-and-feather ID (Intelligent Design) scum if they could find a way to do it without getting caught. Still, their shamings and banishments and lynchings outside lecture halls have kept “detractors” mostly hamstrung until now. This despite the mountain of evident in support of ID proponent’s theories and a landslide of contradictions and blackholes directed at their own. Leisola represents an existential threat to their (money) vaulted resistance. From institutes to institutions, educators and even education itself, there is a multiverse of people who stand to lose from the slightest admission that what is Undeniable (see book by Douglas Axe) as evidence is in fact true.

Worldview Footprint?

Scientists do not function without worldview commitments, and their worldview easily affects the interpretation of their research results. These interpretations can and often will influence the worldviews of the members of the society. Viktor Frankl was a professor in the medical faculty of Vienna. As a Jew he was sent to one of Nazi Germany’s concentration camps, Auschwitz, but survived. Frankl was “absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.” The Nazi regime did not force scientists to work for them but “many scientists voluntarily oriented their work to fit the regime’s policies—as a way of getting money… Most researchers, it turns out, seem to have regarded the regime not as a threat, but as an opportunity for their research ambitions” (“Uncomfortable Truths,” Nature 434, no. 7034). Professor Ernst Haeckel had already, before the First World War, laid the foundation for the Nazis’ racist views, which were generally accepted by the science community. The father of Finnish genetics, Harry Federley, corresponded with Haeckel. He embraced racism and lectured in the world’s first Eugenics Institute in Sweden. In Finland Federley pushed through the sterilization laws for criminals and the mentally handicapped. The laws were in force till 1970.
Haeckel and Federley were monists (matter is the only reality) and had an enormous influence on society (Jahresbuch Europäisches Wissenschaftskultur 2005, 1:1). The shadow of their worldview hangs still above our culture. It was recently expressed in the school shootings (Kauhava and Jokela) where the motive was the principle of natural selection to eliminate the despised. The shooters were victims of the teachings of our culture. Young people tend to be more radical (the word comes from Latin and means going to the root) and function on the basis of their beliefs. Luckily, not all naturalists are that consistent. We rarely think that as university teachers we have to bear the responsibility of the worldview we communicate to students. But the university law obliges us to educate the youth to serve homeland and humanity. Therefore we teachers should recognize the faith commitments of our own worldviews and be careful how we communicate them to students. Fifteen years ago a teacher gave me an essay of a 15-year-old boy: “I studied science journals and formulated a solid worldview for myself. There is no God, no spirit, no meaning. It does not matter if I die now or after fifty years.” It is frightening to think that my own teaching might leave this kind of a footprint and even more frightening to think where it might lead.

Leisola, Matti; Witt, Jonathan. Heretic: One Scientist’s Journey from Darwin to Design (pp. 214-215). Discovery Institute Press. Kindle Edition.