At first, my response was, well duh.  There are plenty of charlatans and other manipulators of sensory perception out there that we need to make sure we are not too easily amazed.  Particularly in an age where computers have the ability to make literally anything appear real or possible.  

But as I thought further, what this essay belies is a fundamental difference in how the world is viewed from Biblical Christianity.  

Biblical Christianity sees all of reality and creation as God's work - not just started and left alone, but intimately sustained.  God is not the same thing as His creation, but God sustains His creation in an intimate way that exceeds our ability to grasp.  Too often we think of God as elsewhere, but breaking in to our world and experience every now and then in supernatural and mystifying ways - the miracles of Jesus, for example.  But I think a more wholistic attitude would be that God is everywhere present sustaining His creation.  There is no separation between natural and supernatural.  But God is a God of order, and many things happen in a consistent, persistent, predictable way.  And other things are not necessarily so.  The fact that God sometimes acts outside of the predictable order He establishes doesn't discount either the predictability of His creation or His own existence.  It simply acknowledges that God acts in ways we can't always explain.  

Bill O'Reilly has taken a lot of mocking in the past week or so for comments where he points to what are popularly considered natural phenomenon and then asks how they came to be or why they work.  Many people laugh him off as an ignorant doofus.  We know how the tides work.  We know where the moon came from, you twit.  But O'Reilly is (I hope) asking deeper questions than this.  Science can explain a great deal about how things work, the causal relationships between various physical elements that result in observable phenomena.  But science can't explain the why.  And in simply reiterating the how, we lose sight of the majesty behind the why.  The best answer that has been posited by science is that it's all just a random accident, probably one of many, that repeats itself over and over and over again, ad infinitum.  In other words, the matter of the universe can be eternally persistent, but the idea of an eternally persistent creator God is unacceptable.  Curious.

Scientists divide creation up into things that we can explain and things we can't.  The assumption is that the first category will continue to grow and the second category will continue to shrink.  Understandably then, they take umbrage with those who might insist that there are some things that are beyond the realm of the explainable (supernatural, not just natural).   This assumes that once we have an explanation for something, it is demystified.  We need no longer be in awe of it.  We understand it.  We can predict it.  And given enough time and resources, we'll be able to control it.  

Frankly, everything is supernatural, in that it is more than the fact of it's own existence.  And explaining the mechanics of God's consistency is not the same thing as demonstrating that the mechanics require no God to sustain them.  The fact that gravity is consistent does not explain why it is consistent, or why it exists at all.  It only barely answers some of the issues of how.  I don't disbelieve in gravity, but I see it's existence as a gift, rather than just an accident.  

So yes, be skeptical.  Christians are called to be discerning because humans are easily fooled.  But be skeptical while at the same time realizing that just because we have a name for something and some calculations for it doesn't remove it from the realm of God's sustaining creation.  Consistency and predictability don't disprove the existence of an entity that ensures that consistency and predictability, but for far too many people, they seem to be used just for that very thing.