I see no scientific credentials in Metaxas' bio.
So in what way is he qualified to ASK yet alone ANSWER this completely inadequate question?
Inadequate because science doesn't inherently argue about God one way or the other.
That certain scientists like Carl Sagan have taken an active antireligious stance doesn't change the fact that God, like all spiritual concepts, lies outside the domain of the scientific method.
There is no testable hypothesis regarding His existence or activities.
What is testable and verified through a large quantity of empirical data, is the paranoia of religious folk, which has escalated over the centuries as scientific research and experimentation disproved many of the church's established cosmological doctrines.
But that is only due to the church's mistake in taking the ancient Hebrew mythological cosmology as fact instead of poetic verse.
“Simply put, Christians are afraid that science will disprove or debunk what they believe. They secretly worry that the next scientific development will be the one that decisively shows that God doesn’t exist, that the gospel is a fraud. They think that the more people know about science, the less they will believe in God. Christians fear science because they think it either competes with faith or is actively engaged in destroying faith. They think that science leaves no room for God; if you let it get its foot in the door, science will take over the whole house. But God is not threatened by science. If creation is the handiwork of God, and science helps us see the exquisite and marvelous workings of creation, how can that do anything but magnify God for people of faith?”
-Adam Hamilton, When Christians Get It Wrong
And that doesn't even address Metaxas' use of Argument from Incredulity, Begging the Question, the been-moldy-for-decades "It takes more faith" cliche, and generally applying hindsight as if it were a separate form of evidence.
If incredulous people didn't have a preconceived cultural concept of a divine creator to reach for, all this data which Metaxas treats as evidence for God would have simply been viewed as more reason to rejoice in our own existence.
With a preconceived concept: "God did all this! Let's sing about it!"
Without a preconceived concept: "WE [humanity or carbon-based life, take your pick] beat the odds! Let's do something with this unique existence that improves our small corner of the universe and hopefully outlasts us as a species and/or as a planet!"
You're totally wrong about the intended affect on the Christian church. "We've got to hit it with the overwhelming force, Darwin. We've got to kill God--the vindictive bugger, and all his fancy priests all over." --T. Huxley in the bio pic CREATION. (You indicated your surprise that Christians were concerned about scientists).
So you must have been asleep during that scene.
The concern is that the animal view of naturalistic life will take over. It is even expressed by Darwin to his daughter before TH pushed him. "It's the end of us, of faith, of trust, of hope, of honor." "The church may be a feeble raft, but we know it floats. We don't know if this will float."
One thing is for sure: Gen 1-11 is not fantasy, Eastern religion or hallucinogenic. It may be primitive in its expressions, but it is reality- based. There may some things that need to be clarified; for ex., is the light of day 1 a primitive atom-split release? Is a firmament overhead? Is it just the sky? But the moment we find man, he is doing artwork, worship, records. Details matter in the narrative that identify a specific time and place, which pin it down. As we would expect from homo sapiens. There are flood records all over the earth, as many as 600 independent tribes. There is the confusion of language.
It is important to do things that improve the quality of life, and Christianity has done so; it is not fatalist. But the spectre of death is also something to answer. And there are many things about this life that are unfair, so there has to be a day of ultimate justice.
re outside scientific inquiry
OK...but as it touches on empirical things, it is true. No one I know of thinks it is "about science." But it touches on several topics that it is not "about." And when it does, it is true. I might be stars. It might shame. It might gold in Mesopotamia. It might be the location of Ararat. It might be the tension between male and female. It is true, but it is not completely about any of them.
As you may know, one of the first miracles Jesus did was a double. What happened was he first said something any charlatan could say: your sins are forgiven. But the rulers of Judaism took issue. OK, he said "So you can know (epistemology) that the Son of God has authority to forgive sins" and he turned to a paralyzed person, and said ''get up and walk.'' And he did. It was seen by hundreds, most importantly, by opposition who almost immediately planned to off him.
The Bible is unconsciously like that. Most other "sacred" literature you will read will annoying try to be doctrinaire/contemplative only or try to prove itself with miracles within miracles that are fantasy. "Make-believe?" snorted filmmaker Hitchcock, "The Bible is not make-believe; there's lies, murder, adultery, scandal almost every page."
"Let's celebrate our existence!" ??? You sound like you've seen a Rembrandt and are just excited about paint, or just about the fact that you were there at the museum. Myself, I'm praising the Artist.