This is a silly objection that shows only that Tyson doesnâ??t understand the fine-tuning argument. The fact to be explained is why the universe is life-permitting rather than life-prohibiting. That is to say, scientists have been surprised to discover that in order for embodied, interactive life to evolve anywhere at all in the universe, the fundamental constants and quantities of nature have to be fine-tuned to an incomprehensible precision. Were even one of these constants or quantities to be slightly altered, the universe would not permit the existence of embodied, interactive life anywhere in the cosmos. These finely-tuned conditions are necessary conditions of life in a universe governed by the present laws of nature.
Notice that Tysonâ??s objection does not attempt to provide an explanation of fine-tuning but is rather a denial of the fact of fine-tuning. But obviously, it would be obtuse to think that the universe is not life-permitting because regions of the universe are not life-permitting! And it would be equally fallacious to think that the universe is not fine-tuned because the finely-tuned parameters are merely necessary but not sufficient conditions for embodied, interactive life to exist. The fact that additional conditions are necessary for embodied, interactive life (such as a certain planetary mass, a certain distance from a star, a moon, a Jupiter-like planet to sweep away threatening comets and asteroids, etc. etc.) does nothing at all to negate the fact that a universe whose constants and quantities were even slightly different would be life-prohibiting. If anything, such additional conditions only strengthen the case for design.
Read Full Article »