Having considered the question as to whether “God did it” is a science stopper and demonstrating that this is nothing but an illogical well-within-the-box-atheist-group think-talking point-de jour (see Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4).
Let us see if two can play this game and turn the tables of a popular modern day promulgator of this fallacy. Is atheism a science stopper? Is timedidit, chancedidit, matterdidit, itjusthappeneddidit, itjustisdidit, science stoppers?
Richard Dawkins is one scientist who has appealed to the mythical multiverse as a way to escape the scientific evidence that concludes that our universe is fine tuned. He is a believer in answering such questions problematic to his atheistic worldview by claiming that 1) of course, it if fined tuned or else we would not be here to observe it and 2) the fine tuning is merely an arbitrary roll of the dice since in the multiverse some uni-verses are fine tuned for life and some are not.
How would Richard Dawkins respond to, merely some of the, evidence for fine tuning. Note, the following is not an actual interview but what one imagine he may say based on his modis [mis]operandi:
Q: Richard Dawkins, how do you respond to the “just right” values of nature’s fundamental constants?
A: If it were no so, we would not be here to observe it.
Q: Richard Dawkins, how do you respond to the “just right” strong nuclear force constant?
A: If it were no so, we would not be here to observe it.
Q: Richard Dawkins, how do you respond to the “just right” ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to Gravitational constant?
A: If it were no so, we would not be here to observe it.
Q: Richard Dawkins, how do you respond to the “just right” mass ratio of the electron and proton?
A: If it were no so, we would not be here to observe it.
Q: Richard Dawkins, how do you respond to the “just right” ratio of protons to electrons?
A: If it were no so, we would not be here to observe it.
Q: Richard Dawkins, how do you respond to the “just right” mass excess of the neutron over the proton?
A: If it were no so, we would not be here to observe it.
Q: Richard Dawkins, how do you respond to the “just right” cosmic entropy level?
A: If it were no so, we would not be here to observe it.
Q: Richard Dawkins, how do you respond to the “just right” fine structure constant?
A: If it were no so, we would not be here to observe it.
Q: Richard Dawkins, how do you respond to the “just right” polarity of the water molecule?
A: If it were no so, we would not be here to observe it.
Q: Richard Dawkins, how do you respond to the “just right” initial excess of matter over antimatter?
A: If it were no so, we would not be here to observe it.
Q: Richard Dawkins, how do you respond to the sun’s historical change in luminosity, which happened to coincide with the specific needs of Earth-based life forms?
A: If it were no so, we would not be here to observe it.
Q: Richard Dawkins, how do you respond to the “just right” galaxy type since if it was too elliptical no heavy elements and if it was too irregular it would amount to an excess of radiation exposure?
A: If it were no so, we would not be here to observe it.
Q: Richard Dawkins, how do you respond to the “just right” supernovae eruptions: not too far or too close, not too infrequent, too soon or too late?
A: If it were no so, we would not be here to observe it.
Q: Richard Dawkins, how do you respond to the “just right” parent star distance from center of galaxy?
A: If it were no so, we would not be here to observe it.
Q: Richard Dawkins, how do you respond to the “just right” number of stars in the planetary system?
A: If it were no so, we would not be here to observe it.
Q: Richard Dawkins, how do you respond to the “just right” parent star age Parent star mass and color?
A: If it were no so, we would not be here to observe it.
Q: Richard Dawkins, how do you respond to the “just right” surface gravity: not too weak or too strong?
A: If it were no so, we would not be here to observe it.
Q: Richard Dawkins, how do you respond to the “just right” distance from parent star – too close: burn up, too far away: freeze to death?
A: If it were no so, we would not be here to observe it.
Q: Richard Dawkins, how do you respond to the “just right” inclination and eccentricity of orbit?
A: If it were no so, we would not be here to observe it.
Q: Richard Dawkins, how do you respond to the “just right” Earth’s axial tilt?
A: If it were no so, we would not be here to observe it.
Q: Richard Dawkins, how do you respond to the “just right” Earth’s Rotation period?
A: If it were no so, we would not be here to observe it.
Q: Richard Dawkins, how do you respond to the “just right” asteroidal and cometary collision rate?
A: If it were no so, we would not be here to observe it.
Q: Richard Dawkins, how do you respond to the “just right” oxygen to nitrogen ratio and oxygen quantity?
A: If it were no so, we would not be here to observe it.
Q: Richard Dawkins, how do you respond to the “just right” global distribution of continents?
A: If it were no so, we would not be here to observe it.
Q: Richard Dawkins, how do you respond to the “just right” ideal continent to ocean mass ratio?
A: If it were no so, we would not be here to observe it.
Q: Richard Dawkins, how do you respond to the “just right” Jupiter distance? If greater: too many asteroid and comet collisions, if less: Earth’s orbit would become unstable.
A: If it were no so, we would not be here to observe it.
Q: Richard Dawkins, how do you respond to the “just right” oxygen / carbon dioxide respiration exchange between plants and animals?
A: If it were no so, we would not be here to observe it.
Q: Richard Dawkins, how do you respond to the “just right” perfect place in galaxy for observation?
A: If it were no so, we would not be here to observe it.
Q: Richard Dawkins, how do you respond to the “just right” ratio of sizes of Sun to Moon for eclipses?
A: If it were no so, we would not be here to observe it.
Clearly, two can play at the “it’s a science stopper” game. The difference is that while “Goddidit” was actually the premise upon which science itself was premised, Richard Dawkins is actually using the multiverse as an escape hatch. According to his way of [un]doing science one does not change the theory to fit the evidence rather, one manipulates the evidence, or denies it, in order to keep holding to a prefer theory.