....a post here recently quoting a piece in the Fox Wall Street Journal...

On Dec. 26, 2014 an opinion piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal
titled “Science Increasingly makes the case for God.� Lawrence Krauss
responded with the following letter disputing its specious science
claims. Unfortunately the editors of the WSJ failed to print his
response. Since then, the opinion piece has gained traction on
right-wing and religious websites, spreading inaccuracies and
misinformation. Lawrence’s letter corrects the record.

By Lawrence Krauss

To the editor:

I was rather surprised to read the unfortunate oped piece “Science
Increasingly makes the case for God�, written not by a scientist but a
religious writer with an agenda. The piece was rife with inappropriate
scientific misrepresentations. For example:

We currently DO NOT know the factors that allow the evolution of
life in the Universe. We know the many factors that were important here
on Earth, but we do not know what set of other factors might allow a
different evolutionary history elsewhere. The mistake made by the
author is akin to saying that if one looks at all the factors in my life
that led directly to my sitting at my computer to write this, one would
obtain a probability so small as to conclude that it is impossible that
anyone else could ever sit down to compose a letter to the WSJ.

We have discovered many more planets around stars in our galaxy
than we previously imagined, and many more forms of life existing in
extreme environments in our planet than were known when early estimates
of the frequency of life in the universe were first made. If anything,
the odds have increased, not decreased.

The Universe would certainly continue to exist even if the strength
of the four known forces was different. It is true that if the forces
had slighty different strengths ( but nowhere near as tiny as the
fine-scale variation asserted by the writer) then life as we know it
would probably not have evolved. This is more likely an example of life
being fine-tuned for the universe in which it evolved, rather than the
other way around.

My ASU colleague Paul Davies may have said that “the appearance of
design is overwhelming�, but his statement should not be misinterpreted.
The appearance of design of life on Earth is also overwhelming, but we
now understand, thanks to Charles Darwin that the appearance of design
is not the same as design, it is in fact a remnant of the remarkable
efficiency of natural selection.

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.

Lawrence M. Krauss is Professor in the School of Earth and Space
Exploration and Directors of the Origins Project at Arizona State
University, and the author most recently A Universe from Nothing: Why
there is something rather than nothing.