Moreover, these scientists are making up the multiverses because they discovered that fine tuning parameters, i.e. fine tuning FACTS, show that earth is the only planet fine tuned for life.
... show that earth is the only planet fine tuned for life.
that is your bias bond, show us the link otherwise where any legitimate scientist claims Earth alone in all the universe is the only repository capable of sustaining life.
physiology is a metaphysical substance that can appear anywhere in the universe and is not native to planet Earth that is proof of its existence elsewhere.
You missed it with your evo eyes. I provided the evidence that there is no other planet in our solar system that is habitable and has life. I know this because of probes. Would you like to see the list?
>>BW: physiology is a metaphysical substance that can appear anywhere in the universe and is not native to planet Earth that is proof of its existence elsewhere.<<
WRONG. Physiology is part of biology and has nothing to with the metaphysical. Speaking of which, fine tuning is found is biology, too. The last part shows that Multiverses were made up to explain the fine tuning facts.
".. modern biology regards it as the product of Darwinian evolution, notably as driven by natural and sexual selection. Relatively recently, some researchers have claimed that some specific “fine-tuned” features of organisms cannot possibly be the outcomes of Darwinian evolutionary development alone and that interventions by some designer must be invoked to account for them. For example, Michael Behe (1996) claims that the so-called
flagellum, a bacterial organ that enables motion, is
irreducibly complex in the sense that it cannot be the outcome of consecutive small-scale individual evolutionary steps, as they are allowed by standard, Darwinian, evolutionary theory. In a similar vein, William Dembski (1998) argues that some evolutionary steps hypothesized by Darwinian are so improbable that one what would not rationally expect them to occur even once in a volume the size of the visible universe. Behe and Dembski conclude that an intelligent designer likely intervened in the evolutionary course of events.
The overwhelming consensus in modern biology is that the challenges to Darwinian evolutionary theory brought forward by Behe, Dembski and others can be met. According to Kenneth Miller (1999), Behe’s arguments fail to establish that there are no plausible small-step evolutionary paths which have Behe’s allegedly “irreducibly complex” features as outcomes. For example, as Miller argues, there is in fact strong evidence for a Darwinian evolutionary history of the flagellum and its constituents (Miller 1999: 147–148).
2. Does Fine-Tuning for Life Require a Response?
Many researchers believe that the fine-tuning of the universe’s laws, constants, and boundary conditions for life calls for inferring the existence of a divine designer (see
Section 3) or a multiverse—a vast collection of universes with differing laws, constants, and boundary conditions (see
Section 4). The inference to a divine designer or a multiverse typically rests on the idea that, in view of the required fine-tuning, life-friendly conditions are in some sense highly
improbable if there is only one, un-designed, universe. It is controversial, however, whether this idea can coherently be fleshed out in terms of any philosophical account of probability."
Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
.
