Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Rossiter: The philosophical missteps in the “ignore fine-tuning” argument at BioLogos


Wayne Rossiter,, author of Shadow of Oz offers a response to Casper Hesp’s concern that we not take fine-tuning of our universe to be evidence for God:

It’s odd to review a review, but a few things came up in Casper Hesp’s review of Signposts to God (by physicist Peter Bussey), and I felt they needed to be pointed out.

First let me say that it is apparent that Hesp’s views are not that representative of BioLogos in general (which begs the question, why is he writing for them?). Namely, if his views are correct then both Francis Collins and Robin Collins, and a good many other BioLogians, are wrong. In fact, most Christians are wrong, because most of us feel that God created the cosmos. Not so fast.

He objects to the “laundry list” of finely-tuned constants and laws, saying,

“I am skeptical of reliance on the narrow range of these physical constants. A hypothetical alien race in a hypothetical parallel universe might be wondering about completely different constants that were essential to its development.”

This is where we see a deep need for philosophy alongside science (namely, physics). Hesp is a graduate student studying astrophysics and neuroscience. Yet, he can’t see the philosophical missteps in his arguments. More.

Actually, common sense would probably do just as well in dismissing an argument against fact that relies only on imagination. We often hear this sort of argument against fine-tuning from people who admit they are naturalist atheists. Things are more nuanced now… Rossiter shouldn’t be too sure that BioLogos members don’t buy it. It would be a logical and comforting next step for them if they did.

See also: [news] BioLogos: Wayne Rossiter’s successful prediction re attack on fine-tuning

At BioLogos: One shouldn’t use fine-tuning as an argument for God’s existence


Copernicus, you are not going to believe who is using your name. Or how.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Rossiter: “After unwrapping the anthropic argument from ‘fine-tuning,’[Bruce] Glass [a theistic evolutionist] crosses the finish line with, ‘It should not go unnoted that there are plausible alternatives to the idea that our universe was specifically designed for the purpose of producing life. None of these alternatives, however, do anything to exclude the possibility of God as the ultimate Creator.’ It’s not often that someone willingly jumps into a logical regress fallacy, but Glass seems more than eager to. He is quite content to play the childish game of ‘my argument’s better than yours, double stamped, no erases, to infinity plus one.’ If the multiverse theory proves a viable explanation for the universe we find ourselves in, he’ll simply say that God made that, and when another theory attempts to explain the underlying laws and mechanisms that give rise to a multiverse, he’ll retract another step. And theistic evolutionists criticize the ID community for God-of-the-gaps arguments!”
There is no honor in sitting on the sidelines and never making a stance.Origenes
April 12, 2017
02:03 PM

Leave a Reply