If the universe had been ever so slightly different, human beings wouldn’t, couldn’t, exist. All explanations of this exquisite fine-tuning, obvious and not-so-obvious, have problems. Featuring interviews with Martin Rees, Leonard Susskind, Alexander Vilenkin, Russell Stannard, Stephen Wolfram, and Roger Penrose.
Reader John Calvert writes to say,
This is an interesting set of interviews of cosmologists as they uniformly agree that there is essentially no known evidence that supports chance and/or necessity as the best explanation for the fine tuning of the universe for life, thereby leaving the evidence based teleological alternative as the default winner.
Of the six or seven interviewed only one goes for a creator. All the others decline to consider it. So, what this video shows is the stark bias of methodological naturalism, which none of them admit. So the atheistic orthodoxy is actually quite concealed.
It seems to me that the guy asking the questions Robert Lawrence Kuhn, knows about MN, but even he does not reveal to the lay public its prohibition against any hypothesis that might support an inference to intelligence.
So, the issue is not really about science, its all about religion – a non-theistic kind of religion which infects objective science.
See also: What becomes of science when the evidence does not matter?