The new evidence for god; does it work?

Is the new evidence of fine tuning a good argument for the existence of God? A brief look.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'Over the past fifty years scientists have uncovered a series of amazing facts which show that the creation is an extremely unlikely place, fine-tuned in specific ways that make human life possible. It shows all the signs that it has been purposefully designed as a place for us to live.' [1.]

- Psalm 104 states of God's works ''in wisdom you made them all." To me this refutes the ideas of certain christian 'liberals' that all god did was to fine tune the universe. (Christian apologist and writer Peter Williams is a believer in the fine tuning arguement, but insists he's not a creationist.) A new website features online videos that set out the fine tuning argument as new evidence for god. (You might know this argument in the form given by people like John Polkinghorne.)

- The bible states that god's works (the wonders we see) were made in wisdom. (e.g. It says of the sea "and the Leviathan which you formed to frolic there." Psalm 104) This says to me that God did a lot more than fine tune the Big Bang; that he took an active part in creating the original life forms on this planet. In my opinion it takes a lot of 'maneuvering' to see Psalm 104 (etc.) as a reference to fine tuning the Big Bang. Apologists and scientists like this have swallowed the materialist scenario (BB to man) hook, line and sinker. (Especially the sinker.)

There's only one problem with this idea - it's impossible. The idea a mere explosion of 'matter' (singularity, whatever) can result some time later in human beings seems absurd. The laws of physics aren't creative; they act in a rigid cause and effect manner. (They can't produce genetic code for one thing.)

This 'new evidence' for God either denies or ignores the plain message of the Bible on the one hand, and adopts a materialist explanation that's impossible on the other hand. I consider it about as useful as a wet firecracker.

Mike Johnson [frfarer - at- gmail.com]

Notes;
1. Note taken from the website.
- You can check out the argument/s for yourself at God: the new evidence
2. From a short book review (on the God: new evidence website)
'If you want to read more about cosmic fine-tuning, one of the best short books is ‘Just Six Numbers: the deep forces that shape the universe,’ by Martin Rees.
Rees discusses the six numbers of the title that contribute to a life-supporting universe: the ratio of the strength of electrical forces to the force of gravity; the strength with which atomic nuclei bind together; the density of the universe; the cosmological repulsion constant; the amount of unevenness in the big bang; and the number of spatial dimensions. He argues that if any of these numbers were much different from what they actually are, life would be impossible.'
- The idea if you have these 'numbers' you will automatically have a universe full of living organisms and intelligent beings is a logical fallacy. i.e. because 'life' needs these things doesn't mean that if you have these factors in place you will have living organisms. (e.g. the fact humans need water to survive doesn't mean that if you have water on a planet you'll have human beings.) MJ
3. In case I didn't make myself clear, my criticism of the argument is not that the fine tuning of various constants isn't evidence of creation, but that the living forms we see on earth (including man) did not, and cannot have evolved via purely 'naturalistic' mechanisms. My argument is that God did a lot more than simply fine tune the Big Bang and then step aside and watch the show.
4. So what do we see here? Do we see a case of fine tuning the universe, or do we see a case of fine tuning the argument for Liberalism?