Editing Intelligent design (section)

===Fine-tuned universe===
{{Main|Fine-tuned universe}}
Intelligent design proponents have also occasionally appealed to broader teleological arguments outside of biology, most notably an argument based on the [[Fine-tuned universe|fine-tuning of universal constants]] that make matter and life possible and that are argued not to be solely attributable to chance. These include the values of [[Dimensionless physical constant|fundamental physical constants]], the relative strength of [[nuclear force]]s, [[electromagnetism]], and [[Gravitation|gravity]] between [[Elementary particle|fundamental particles]], as well as the ratios of masses of such particles. Intelligent design proponent and Center for Science and Culture fellow [[Guillermo Gonzalez (astronomer)|Guillermo Gonzalez]] argues that if any of these values were even slightly different, the universe would be dramatically different, making it impossible for many [[chemical element]]s and features of the [[Universe]], such as [[galaxy|galaxies]], to form.<ref>[[#Gonzalez 2004|Gonzalez 2004]]</ref> Thus, proponents argue, an intelligent designer of life was needed to ensure that the requisite features were present to achieve that particular outcome.

Scientists have generally responded that these arguments are poorly supported by existing evidence.<ref>[[#Stenger 2011|Stenger 2011]], p. 243</ref><ref>[[#Susskind 2005|Susskind 2005]]</ref> [[Victor J. Stenger]] and other critics say both intelligent design and the [[Anthropic principle#Variants|weak form]] of the [[anthropic principle]] are essentially a [[Tautology (logic)|tautology]]; in his view, these arguments amount to the claim that life is able to exist because the Universe is able to support life.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf |title=Is The Universe Fine-Tuned For Us? |last=Stenger |first=Victor J |author-link=Victor J. Stenger |website=Victor J. Stenger |publisher=University of Colorado |location=Boulder, Colo. |access-date=2014-02-28 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120716192004/http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf |archive-date=July 16, 2012 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/ant_encyc.pdf |title=The Anthropic Principle |last=Stenger |first=Victor J |author-link=Victor J. Stenger|website=Victor J. Stenger |publisher=University of Colorado |location=Boulder, Colo. |access-date=2012-06-16 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120617015335/http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/ant_encyc.pdf |archive-date=June 17, 2012 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Silk |first=Joseph |author-link=Joseph Silk |date=September 14, 2006 |title=Our place in the Multiverse |journal=[[Nature (journal)|Nature]] |volume=443 |issue=7108 |pages=145–146 |bibcode=2006Natur.443..145S |doi=10.1038/443145a |issn=0028-0836 |doi-access=free }}</ref> The claim of the improbability of a life-supporting universe has also been criticized as an [[Argument from ignorance#Argument from incredulity/Lack of imagination|argument by lack of imagination]] for assuming no other forms of life are possible: life as we know it might not exist if things were different, but a different sort of life might exist in its place. A number of critics also suggest that many of the stated variables appear to be interconnected and that calculations made by mathematicians and physicists suggest that the emergence of a universe similar to ours is quite probable.<ref>[[#Huchingson 1993|Feinberg & Shapiro 1993]], "A Puddlian Fable", pp. 220–221</ref>