Genetically Modified Skeptic Simpleton (GMS) Bumps His Head and Makes Baby Talk about the Fine-Tuned Argument By Ringtone Note the silly conviction of intellectual superiority on Simpleton's face as he confounds the fine-tuned argument of the strong anthropic principle with the teleological argument from Design. While the entirety of GMS' video is a train wreck of factual and logical errors, the arguably most mangled debris among the wreckage is his treatment of the scientific principle on which the theological inference of the fine-tuned argument for God's existence is predicated, namely, the strong anthropic principle, which has absolutely nothing to do with the occurrence or adaptation of life to the conditions of the extant universe. GMS stupidly invokes the philosophically obtuse and scientifically naive reasoning of Douglas Adams' Puddle Analogy Yellow Puddle of Soiled Panties Analogy (YPSPA), which Adams initially presented in a live forum from his unpublished musings. A few years later it was published in a posthumous collection of his previously published and unpublished material in The Salmon of Doubt: Hitchhiking the Galaxy One Last Time (2002): Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact, it fits me so staggeringly well, it must have been made to have me in it!' —Douglas Adams The analogy has been panned for years by both theist and atheist philosophers of science alike who grasp the prevailing scientific data and the ramifications thereof. While Adams' Analogy is arguably applicable to Paley's teleological argument from design/complexity, it's an embarrassingly stupid counter to the fine-tuned argument of the strong anthropic principle. Only philosophically incompetent and/or scientifically illiterate atheists invoke Adams' analogy against the alternate cosmological models of the weak or the strong anthropic principle. Listen carefully to this portion of GMS' video: (1:27 — 4:31). GMS unwittingly conflates the fine-tuned argument of the strong anthropic principle and the teleological argument from design/complexity. He thinks they're the same thing in terms of logic, and refers to his delusion as the fine-tuned argument or the teleological argument interchangeably relative to the YPSPA. Douglas Adams, who was not a trained scientist, by the way, made the same mistake two decades ago, and, blindly following his lead, new atheist laymen have been foolishly repeating this error over and over again ever since. GMS stupidly avers that the fine-tuned argument "is no problem for the [Yellow Puddle of Soiled Panties Analogy]" because "[t]he analogy just shifts perspectives, presenting the possibility that the universe existed first and that we in our evolution came to exist as a creature that fits its preexisting environment. . . . It entertains the thought that we are the result of adaptation to our environment, rather than our environment was built to specifically accommodate the capabilities and limitations of humans." But contrary to what GMS claims, the theological inference of the strong anthropic principle isn't drawn from the observation that "the nature of the cosmos is such that it allows for life as we know it to exist." Straw man! GMS thinks his observation is profoundly obvious, when it's only mundanely obvious and irrelevant. The prevailing scientific data evinces that the range of habitable cosmologies is very narrow (finely tuned), such that the statistical odds of our universe coming up heads for any form of life at all (whether it be terrestrial life or not, intelligent life or not) from a single, unguided roll of the dice, as it were, are staggeringly unlikely! In other words, Adams and his lemmings have never understood what finely tuned means in this instance relative to the prevailing scientific data. The theological inference of the strong anthropic principle is not drawn from our extant perspective after the fact of an apparently wonderous complexity of life that must necessarily be a product of design at all! It is not drawn from the notion that "the nature of the cosmos is such that it allows for life as we know it to exist", as GMS claims. Turek, who understands the matter just fine, doesn't say anything about "life as we know it" relative to the finely tuned range of habitable cosmologies. Why? Because the finely tuned argument does not go to the occurrence or evolution of life in any given habitable environment after the fact; it goes to the apparent fact that the astronomical structures and systems, and the elemental diversity that are necessary for any kind of life at all to occur or evolve wouldn't exist in the first place if any one of the physical constants or initial conditions were significantly different in this universe or in any other. Indeed, according to the standard model, if the strength of the cosmic inflation of the Big Bang had varied by 1 part in 10^60 the universe would have never reached the expansion phase at all, but would have collapsed back onto itself faster than you can say lickety-split!