The flaws of the fine-tuning argument

If you want to claim fine-tuning then you must accept abiogenesis is true or else concede that the fine-tuning is not fine-tuned enough. So do you accept fine-tuning but deny abiogenesis is true ?  If so then my opening argument against your position follows:

The fine-tuning argument has a flaw in that no one has shown how life forms even with all the so-called fine-tuned universe parameters. They usually comment about huge things like star formation or galaxies. Fine-tune supporters have not yet run the numbers for the current ratios to see how life actually forms.

Arguably that’s also an argument against the scientific model of the universe but the difference is that the search for the answer to the chemical problem of abiogenesis is an ongoing work-in-progress and it is doing very well.

People who support fine-tuning should accept abiogenesis as true. If they do not then they are admitting that the fine-tuning is not fine-tuned enough and so self-defeat their own argument of fine-tuning.  That’s not a “fine-tuned” universe but a “Close-enough” Universe, a “ship-it-now-and-fix-it-later” Universe, a “suck-it-and-see” universe.  You must admit that there is a more fine-tuned universe in which abiogenesis is true is possible.

As an aside, any claims whatsoever about fine-tuning are flawed as even with the most improbable of fine-tuning of parameters (and people love to multiple out vast numbers of ratios to get incredible improbable values for this universe) there are literally an infinity of possible ratios that will remain as candidates.

For example if the ratio of gravity and EM forces are within the 1 x 10^40 deviation then there are still an infinity of possible results that are within that deviation.

If fine-tuners be they creationists or ID do accept evolution and abiogenesis then they also have to run the numbers for any of the many possible fluctuations in values to see what life forms. Good luck with that !

So fine-tuners have a problem with any position they take: they either accept abiogenesis and so must show how life forms spontaneously for ONLY the exact fine-tuning parameters or if they don’t accept abiogenesis then they must admit that there is a more fine-tuned universe in which abiogenesis is true.

  • Luke Connor

    Is this then a case of swopping cause and consequence ?. Explaining why a glove fits a hand ?

    • (Sorry for the delay – don’t use Disqus much and had to update database and change Disqus text color to light background).
      The claims of fine tuning are supported by evidence such as the spontaneous formation of things such as stars, planets and even the elements. These things happen without obvious interaction beyond these parameters. If a glove fits a hand then we would expect the spontaneous formation of gloves on hands – which is clearly not the case so I do not see it as a very useful analogy though you could argue the case for a pool of different gloves and you pick the one that fits. As a metaphor it is a bit tenuous given gloves are superfluous to the existence of hands.