But also, this is a speculative hypothesis really just moves the improbability that we're dealing

with of the fine-tuning upper level, as it were, from the universe to this hypothetical

postulated law itself. It's a bit like trying to get rid of a wrinkle in a carpet by stamping on the wrinkle in

the carpet.

Well, that will just move the wrinkle along somewhere else.

It doesn't really deal with the issue.

ID, The Future, a podcast about evolution and intelligent design.

If a friend, family member, or colleague lodges an objection to the fine-tuning argument

for intelligent design, are you ready to respond?

Hey, everyone, I'm Andrew McDermott and welcome to ID the Future.

Today I conclude my two-part conversation with philosopher and intelligent design scholar,

Peter S. Williams.

We're discussing his comprehensive list of objections to the fine-tuning argument, as well

as responses that he's assembled along with information from others for each.

Now, in case you don't know, Peter, he's based in Southampton, England.

Williams is an adjunct professor in communication and worldviews at NLA University College in Norway

and a trustee of the Christian Evidence Society.

He is author of several books,

including an informed cosmos, essays on intelligent design theory. We've spoken about that one

in the past, so you can look up that episode if you want to learn more about his book. Well, Peter,

it's good to have you back. Grand, nice to join you in your audience.

Yeah.

...