WSJ Refused To Publish Lawrence Krauss' Response To "Science Proves Religion"

First time accepted submitter Kubla Kahhhn! writes Recently, the WSJ posted a controversial piece "Science Increasingly Makes a Case for God", written by non-scientist Eric Metaxas. Noted astrophysicist Lawrence Krauss wrote a simple and clear retort in a letter to the editor, which the WSJ declined to publish, but Richard Dawkins did.

Comments

You've got it exactly backward.

[jeffb (2.718)]

"The article [which was printed] was written by the evangelical author Eric Metaxas, and in it, he argued that scientists have determined that life is so improbable it must have been created."

"Krauss concluded [in a letter which was not printed] by writing that '[r]eligious 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 [Wall Street Journal] did a disservice to its readers.'"

It's not your father's Wall Street Journal

[gestalt_n_pepper]

It was bought by Murdoch in 2007 and it's editorial director fired in 2008. Since then, it's just another mouthpiece for conservative Republicans (Murdoch also owns Fox News). The Wall Street Journal purchase was made to make Murdoch's news organizations look respectable.

As is turns out, it was just an expensive suit on a cheap hustler who got lucky enough to get rich with media organizations after inheriting the family business from his father.

Murdoch Bought the WSJ

[l0ungeb0y]

ergo unbiased, fair and balanced Op-Ed does not exist there

Re: Yawn

[Immerman]

A scientists view of claims that "science proves religion" however, is likely to be *far* more valid. Especially in the typical case where the arguments are as blatantly misleading as "science says this is hard, so god must have done it" while ignoring that science also explains why we should expect it to happen anyway.