"I was focusing on the inability of this fune-tuned universe to bring forth
life without 'form-imposing intervention'".
But that's just the feature of ID that I find to be awkwardly inconsistent.
The phenomenon of cosmological fine tuning points to the universe's
remarkable ability to "bring forth" a diverse array of physical structures
and forms--nucleons, atomic nuclei, atoms, molecules, planets, stars,
galaxies, and the like--from its most elementary form of energy. In
agreement with the proponents of ID, I interpret that as evidence favoring
the idea that the universe was thoughtfully conceptualized by its Source of
being. What the preachers of naturalism take to be mere "anthropic
cosmological coincidences" I take to be evidence of thoughtful
conceptualization.
(Tim Ikeda is correct in noting that this is an aesthetic argument; but
this type of argument is common both within and outside of the sciences.)
But proponents of ID want to say that this fine tuning is limited to the
formational history of physical structures and does not extend to the
formational history of biotic forms. I say, why not? (My proposal for a
"robust formational economy" consistently incorporates both physical and
biotic formational capabilities.)
When confronted with evidence of fine tuning in the arena of the formation
of physical structures, proponents of ID want to claim that evidence as
favoring "design" (here 'design' is used in the sense of both thoughtfully
conceptualized and equipped with the requisite capabilities for the
actualization of structures).
However, when confronted with evidence or argumentation for a similar
degree of fine tuning in the properties and capabilities of chemical and
biotic systems, proponents of ID adopt a completely different
strategy--deny the presence of these "anthropic biological coincidences"
(what I would call biological fine-tuning), deny that the universe has been
gifted with the requisite capabilities to make the evolutionary development
of life forms possible, and hypothesize the occurrence of accasional
episodes of "intelligent design" (_now_ meaning the form-imposing action of
an undesignated crafty molecular artisan--a substantially different meaning
of 'design' from the one noted earlier).
My limited point here is that the proponents of ID need to make a
choice--EITHER 1) give up the use of cosmological fine-tuning as evidence
for their position (it is _not_ evidence of _their brand_ of ID) and
acknowledge it as evidence favoring the idea of a Creation optimally gifted
with a robust formational economy, OR 2) adopt the consistent strategy of
accepting the idea of biological fine-tuning and employ it in the same way
as they now wish to employ cosmological fine-tuning.
Howard Van Till