From Casper Hesp at BioLogos:
I believe it is unwise to turn fine-tuning into an argument based on the gaps in our understanding, because the properties of the universe could become more amenable to scientific explanation in the future. Watchful readers will have noticed that the pitfalls discussed here have almost one-on-one equivalents in common arguments of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement. ID proponents have used arguments from probability, entropy, and gaps in our current understanding of nature to make inferences about the existence of a “designer.” More.
Has the author any reason to expect that more discoveries will lead to fewer perceptions of fine-tuning? Has that been the pattern so far? If not, what is his basis for thinking it risky to go with the pattern?
Wayne State biologist and Shadow of Oz: author Wayne Rossiter notes,
It’s “wishing on the unknown” to explain away what is known. In other words, a severe logical fallacy.
Oh well, tht means it’ll be sure to get funded. He adds,
From what I can extract of this review, Casper Hesp seems to be arguing why we shouldn’t even look to see a designer in the underlying fabric of the universe. I predicted this step incidentally 😉
Yes, the ultimate theistic evolution position is that God is so great that he need not exist. Thus we can say whatever we like about it and it need not make any sense.
See also: A “souls” argument against the fine tuning of the universe
Free live interactive webinar Saturday with fine-tuning astrophysicist Luke Barnes
and
Copernicus, you are not going to believe who is using your name. Or how.
Follow UD News at Twitter!