Recall that my second objection was that the argument plays on our intuitions that a Universe whose constants are within a narrow life-permitting range cries out for an explanation while a Universe whose constants are within a narrow range required for maximizing the number of red rocks wouldn’t cry out for an explanation. For this reason, it seems that the fine-tuning argument requires a traditionally theistic view of life – one that sees the very existence of biological life as having objective significance in the universe, and so demanding an explanation. This, I noted would be a clear circular argument.

How did Mr. Andrews respond?

He says that I was arguing that our universe could actually be fine-tuned for red rocks instead of life. I agree with Andrews in his criticism – that is indeed a terrible, pop- objection. But, of course, this isn’t at all the point I was making.