Fine tuning in the universe and now biology how interesting

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519320302071#ab010

At what point can it be said, an undirected process without intent could cause all there is from the fine-tuning of the universe and now the fine-tuning of life itself?

Interesting read.  Thanks for posting.  This has potential implications for the origin of life, and it is true that biological information is reality, not metaphor (e.g., See, "DNA as Information").  With regard to biological evolution, though, at most this only speaks to mechanisms of evolution, but does nothing to discredit (or even challenge) the evidence for common ancestry that evolution has still occurred.  This article is very recent (2020), so it will be interesting to see how it is received.  At least one group of investigators has already disputed it: See, "Large sample spaces do not imply biological systems are 'fine-tuned'"

It isn't easy to get past our preconceived ideas on what true or not. I cannot help but think of the Dawkins quote, where he says something along the lines of, "Life appears design, but it is only illusionary." We can look right at something and miss it if we are not careful.

The illusion is amazingly rich. It  shows how powerful the process of evolution is given a planet and a few billion years.

You do realize, fine tuning does nothing to make the Universe a day less than 13 billion years old. 

Right?

Okay.

I am going to jump the fence, and make a meme for the Creationists. Goes to Missing Links arguement

Exactly. If such a thing as 'God' actually exists & I very much doubt it, He would have to be a master of deceit & that would be very hard to explain.

   I doubt he’ll be taking questions on Judgement Day, but if so maybe you’ll get a chance to ask him.

Just to clarify, I meant my remark in the context of the 'young earth' model of creation because the science around dating the age of our planet & the stars has reached a very refined level.

That's to say those who refuse to accept an age for the earth in the several billion years, are going further & further out on that creationist limb.

Actually, we haven’t moved.

As Einstein might point out here - that's relative!

@TruthMuse I do have questions (and criticisms) of the article you posted, including some of the source citations it relies on, but I really like the fact and think it's great that you posted a peer-reviewed journal article.   Also, since this touches on philosophical issues, the Journal of Theoretical Biology seems like the appropriate place for such an article.

I do agree that this discussion needs to be had and more fully addressed in the biological sciences--like it has been in the physical sciences.  However, the history of biology has a much more developed resistance and hate-hate relationship when it comes to all things design and teleology, and there is an immediate, knee-jerk reaction and rejection of any such talk.  As scientists I believe we must always be wary of such instant rejections.  At the same time---and ironically---the misguided, unprofessional, quasi-activist/agenda-driven, personal-attack ridden approach that largely characterizes the ID and (especially) young earth creationist movements has created and intensified this knee-jerk reaction.  

As a scientist who is also a Christian, it has been my unfortunate experience to observe the often decidedly "un-Christian," mocking and caustic behavior of the YEC movement contrasted with the routinely more polite, professional "Christian" behavior of secular scientists.  

*No one is ever persuaded by insults.  THIS, however---i.e., a peer-reviewed journal article--IS the proper approach and venue, so thank you again for posting this.

That said, I have some additional thoughts on the subject, but am up against the clock, so will have to return later... 

      No, it’s actually true as written.

We have moved quite a bit, over the last 13 Billion years.

   Theories, theories, theories....

Theory of gravity, kinetic molecular theory, the cell theory...

   If it is subject to change, it is not truth.

And yet YECs have no problem using (or misusing) science when it is convenient for them.  Nor is truth, "truth," when it's misinterpreted, anachronized, or otherwise twisted to fit one's preconceptions.

We’re talking about theories, not science. YEC’s have a problem with theories masquerading as science. I’m sure you know that truth is just another word for facts, and theory is just another word for guess. A guess is still a guess even when a lot of lab coats are guessing it.

@Kjvav You are mistaken.  You are confusing the common (mis-)understanding of a theory as a conjecture.  A scientific theory, however, is not conjecture but an explanation of the observed facts and makes testable predictions.  Replace "theory" with "explanation" to get the correct sense.  For example, the "Big Bang Explanation" (of cosmic background radiation, elemental abundances, Doppler redshift...).  We observe an expanding universe, cosmic background radiation, elemental abundances of 74% hydrogen, 24% helium, etc.  "The Big Bang Theory/Explanation" is a scientific explanation for why this is so.