Here is one of the most pro-ID quotes I have seen (broken into three parts for clarity),
[Left: Beyond Coincidence, by Martin Plimmer and Brian King, Amazon.com]
from a second- hand book I bought the other day, which I had never heard of, by two authors, Martin Plimmer a journalist and broadcaster, and Brian King a producer for BBC Radio 4, who as far as I am aware are not otherwise pro-ID.
The book (apart from this quote on the fine-tunedness of the Universe, which comprises its last two pages) is a collection of amazing coincidences drawn from everyday life, which I tend to agree with this critical review that (apart from this fine-tuning of the Universe evidence-which the reviewer just ignores) they are just that: coincidences.
The first part of the quote notes that, "the most important coincidence in ... everybody's life" is "the fundamental physical laws pertaining to the day-to-day running of the Universe" are "finely balanced ... One flip of a decimal point either way and ... the Universe as we know it wouldn't exist and ... nor would we" (my emphasis):
"The Ultimate Coincidence Perhaps we should call it the First Coincidence. Or the Last Coincidence. Either would suit, but 'Ultimate' most fits its superlative significance. It's the most important coincidence in our life, in everybody's life; in the life of our planet, our Solar System and our Universe. To begin with, it brought us all together. It's the reason we are. And if ever its felicitous consonance should alter, we won't be around to speculate whether it was a happy accident or part of a grand unified design. Nothing will be around. We're talking about fundamental here; the fundamental physical laws pertaining to the day-to-day running of the Universe. Physicists call them the fundamental constants - things like the masses of atomic particles, the speed of light, the electric charges of electrons, the strength of gravitational force ... They're beginning to realise just how finely balanced they are. One flip of a decimal point either way and things would start to go seriously wrong. Matter wouldn't form, stars wouldn't twinkle, the Universe as we know it wouldn't exist and, if we insist on taking the selfish point of view in the face of such epic, almighty destruction, nor would we." (Plimmer, M. & King, B., "Beyond Coincidence: Stories of Amazing Coincidences and the Mystery and Mathematics that Lie Behind Them," , Allen & Unwin: Crows Nest NSW, Australia, Extended Edition, 2005, p.303. Emphasis & ellipses original)
Plimmer and King ask, "Who or what decided at the time of the Big Bang that the number of particles created would be one-in-a-billion more than the number of anti-particles, thus rescuing us by the width of a whisker from annihilation long before we even existed" and ensuring that "the number of matter particles left ... would be exactly the right number to create a gravitational force that balanced the force of expansion and didn't collapse the Universe", etc (my emphasis):
"The cosmic harmony that made life possible exists at the mercy of what appear, on the face of it, to be unlikely odds. Who or what decided at the time of the Big Bang that the number of particles created would be one-in-a-billion more than the number of anti-particles, thus rescuing us by the width of a whisker from annihilation long before we even existed (because when matter and anti-matter meet, they cancel each other out)? Who or what decided that the number of matter particles left behind after this oversized game of cosmic swapsy would be exactly the right number to create a gravitational force that balanced the force of expansion and didn't collapse the Universe like a popped balloon? Who decided that the mass of the neutron should be just enough to make the formation of atoms possible? That the nuclear force that holds atomic nuclei together, in the face of their natural electromagnetic desire to repulse each other, should be just strong enough to achieve this, thus enabling the Universe to move beyond a state of almost pure hydrogen? Who made the charge on the proton exactly right for the stars to turn into supernovae? Who fine-tuned the nuclear resonance level for carbon to just delicate enough a degree that it could form, making life, all of which is built on a framework of carbon, possible?" (Plimmer & King, 2005, pp.303-304)
The authors note that, "The list goes on" of these fine-tuned cosmic coincidences, which "in spite of billions of alternative possibilities, combines exquisitely, in the right time sequence, at the right speed, weight, mass and ratio, ... precisely equivalent to a stable universe in which life can exist at all."
This leaves "the human mind" only one of "two antithetical philosophies it chooses to follow" - "The first philosophy says ... that the Universe ... is designed and tuned ... by some supreme intelligence, especially for the purpose of supporting life" or "The other says it's a one in a trillion coincidence" (my emphasis):
"The list goes on. And on. And as it goes on - as each particularly arrayed and significantly defined property, against all the odds, and in spite of billions of alternative possibilities, combines exquisitely, in the right time sequence, at the right speed, weight, mass and ratio, and with every mathematical quality precisely equivalent to a stable universe in which life can exist at all - it adds incrementally in the human mind to a growing sense, depending on which of two antithetical philosophies it chooses to follow, of either supreme and buoyant confidence, or humble terror. The first philosophy says this perfect pattern shows that the Universe is not random; that it is designed and tuned, from the atom up, by some supreme intelligence, especially for the purpose of supporting life. The other says it's a one in a trillion coincidence." (Plimmer & King, 2005, p.304. Emphasis original).
So if in St. Paul's day, humans were "without excuse" for attempting to "suppress the truth" of what is "plain to them" that there is a God whose "eternal power and divine nature" are "clearly seen, being understood from what has been made":
Rom 1:18-32. "18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (my emphasis)
then how much more are they "without excuse" who, given all this further scientific evidence for the fine-tunedness of the Universe, still prefer to say "it's a one in a trillion" [or far, far, worse indeed effectively "zero chance - see `tagline' below] coincidence"!
Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
"The extent of the universe's fine-tuning makes the Anthropic Principle perhaps the most powerful argument for the existence of God. It's not that there are just a few broadly defined constants that may have resulted by chance. No, there are more than 100 very narrowly defined constants that strongly point to an intelligent Designer. [Ross, H.N., "Why I Believe in Divine Creation," in Geisler, N.L. & Hoffman, P., eds., "Why I Am a Christian: Leading Thinkers Explain Why They Believe," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 2001] We've already identified five of them. Here are ten more: 1. If the centrifugal force of planetary movements did not precisely balance the gravitational forces, nothing could be held in orbit around the sun. 2. If the universe had expanded at a rate one millionth more slowly than it did, expansion would have stopped, and the universe would have collapsed on itself before any stars had formed. If it had expanded faster, then no galaxies would have formed. 3. Any of the laws of physics can be described as a function of the velocity of light (now defined to be 299,792,458 meters per second). Even a slight variation in the speed of light would alter the other constants and preclude the possibility of life on earth. 4. If water vapor levels in the atmosphere were greater than they are now, a runaway greenhouse effect would cause temperatures to rise too high for human life; if they were less, an insufficient greenhouse effect would make the earth too cold to support human life. 5. If Jupiter were not in its current orbit, the earth would be bombarded with space material. Jupiter's gravitational field acts as a cosmic vacuum cleaner, attracting asteroids and comets that might otherwise strike earth. 6. If the thickness of the earth's crust were greater, too much oxygen would be transferred to the crust to support life. If it were thinner, volcanic and tectonic activity would make life impossible. 7. If the rotation of the earth took longer than twenty-four hours, temperature differences would be too great between night and day. If the rotation period were shorter, atmospheric wind velocities would be too great. 8. The 23-degree axil [sic] tilt of the earth is just right. If the tilt were altered slightly, surface temperatures would be too extreme on earth. 9. If the atmospheric discharge (lightning) rate were greater, there would be too much fire destruction; if it were less, there would be too little nitrogen fixing in the soil. 10. If there were more seismic activity, much more life would be lost; if there was less, nutrients on the ocean floors and in river runoff would not be cycled back to the continents through tectonic uplift. (Yes, even earthquakes are necessary to sustain life as we know it!) Astrophysicist Hugh Ross has calculated the probability that these and other constants-122 in all-would exist today for any planet in the universe by chance (i.e., without divine design). Assuming there are 1022 planets in the universe (a very large number: 1 with 22 zeros following it), his answer is shocking: one chance in 10138-that's one chance in one with 138 zeros after it! There are only 1070 atoms in the entire universe. In effect, there is zero chance that any planet in the universe would have the life-supporting conditions we have, unless there is an intelligent Designer behind it all." (Geisler, N.L. & Turek; F., "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist," Crossway Books: Wheaton IL, 2004, pp.104-106. Emphasis original)