Why Do I Read Pro-Evolution Material?

Ideally, the goal of science
requires following the
evidence wherever it leads

 

Why My Main Reading Diet Is Articles Supporting Evolution
A Review of a Scientific Paper on the Fine-Tuning Argument

by Jerry Bergman, PhD

The goal of science is to investigate and understand the material reality of the world around us. Ideally, this requires following the evidence wherever it leads. For this reason, science is forced to view and accept the reality it discovers.[1] Yet a tension exists between this ideal and what is commonly observed in practice: despite the substantial evidence challenging the evolutionary worldview, most scientists accept evolution—from molecules to man—as an unquestionable, non-negotiable fact.[2]

Darwin Dogma Still Rules the World

One reason for this contradiction is that evolution is routinely presented as settled science in the media, textbooks, and peer-reviewed literature. To unwind before retiring for the night, I watch about an hour of science-related videos each evening. Without exception, these programs either explicitly present evolution as fact or implicitly assume it as true. On the rare occasions when creation or intelligent design is mentioned, it is typically ridiculed or dismissed, often without serious engagement. Some even argue that teaching evidence against evolution “endangers education.”[3] Only evidence supportive of evolution can be safely presented.

A second reason is the majority of evolutionists wear evolution glasses, which causes them to interpret reality through these evolutionary lenses. In other words, scientists are constrained to interpret all data through an evolutionary framework that functions as a conceptual lens. Within this framework, explanations must be naturalistic and undirected, which effectively prevents design-based interpretations from being considered, regardless of what their research uncovers. This often results in researchers lightly dismissing or ignoring the challenges their findings present for evolution.

Darwin’s Prophets Still Boast

A third approach is more candid. In this approach, evolutionists openly acknowledge the philosophical implications of their worldview. One such example states that

evolution killed the god who made Adam out of dirt, Eve from a rib (for some reason), and the whole universe in a week. … If evolution is real (and it is), life didn’t show up fully assembled. It crawled out of chaos — slowly, painfully, and sometimes stupidly. Nature is full of leftovers and bad designs that make no sense if God planned it all perfectly. But they make perfect sense if things evolved over time by trial and error. A God who had to tinker constantly? Evolution makes him look like an idiot engineer. If we evolved from earlier primates, then we weren’t specially created — we’re part of the animal kingdom. No divine fingerprint. No “image of God.” Just another twig on the big ol’ tree of life. Evolution runs on a few brutally simple rules:

1. Variation (offspring aren’t identical)
2. Selection (some survive better than others)
3. Heredity (traits pass on)
4. Time (lots of it)

That’s it.

From that recipe, we get elephants, brains, wings, music, sex, morality, and yes, even you reading this…. That’s genius design without a designer.”[4]

Although rarely stated in such provocative language, this passage accurately reflects the beliefs of the majority of evolutionists/scientists.

But They Have Feet of Clay

One argument both creationists and intelligent design proponents use to support their worldview is the fine tuning argument, which observes that the universe’s physical constants—such as gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong/weak nuclear forces—as well as its initial conditions, fall within an extraordinarily narrow range that permits life to exist, such that even slight deviations in these values would render the universe lifeless.

From this observation, evolution supporters and proponents argue that deliberate design provides a better explanation for this “life-permitting” universe[5] than chance or necessity alone, because if no intelligent cause exists, the probability of such precise conditions arising by accident is astronomically small, if not effectively impossible.

The fine-tuning argument recognizes the fact that the universe is precisely calibrated to support life through the delicate balance of its physical laws and constants. A finely tuned universe, which was designed to support life by precise calibration of its physical laws, exists to produce a universe that supports life. It is not merely that forces, such as gravity, exist, but that they exist within the extraordinarily narrow range that supports life.

For instance, estimates suggest that a variation in the strength of gravitational force as small as one part in 10⁶⁰ would preclude everything from star formation to the biochemistry that forms life. If gravity were slightly stronger, the structure of the universe—and consequently the conditions required for life, including human existence—would be fundamentally altered. Changes in the strength of the strong nuclear force would prevent atoms or elements from forming, eliminating the possibility of chemistry and life.

The Truth Is Clearly Seen

Statements such as this illustrate an important pattern in contemporary scholarship. Even researchers who fully accept evolutionary theory increasingly acknowledge that features of the universe—such as its apparent fine-tuning for life—raise legitimate explanatory questions. While such authors typically stop short of endorsing design, they nevertheless concede that the fine-tuning cannot simply be dismissed as illusory or unworthy of explanation.

One example appears in an article published in the Journal for General Philosophy of Science, which concludes that fine-tuning arguments, despite ongoing debate, continue to pose a serious challenge that any comprehensive worldview must address.[6] The author, Roberto Fumagalli, opines the following:

the fact that this universe’s fundamental parameter values fall within the very narrow range that permits intelligent life constitutes a highly precise – and, for all we know, extremely improbable– match” …  critiques cast doubt on various instances of fine-tuning reasoning, but fail to undermine FTAs’ [fine-tuning argument’s] conclusion that the universe’s purported fine-tuning for intelligent life calls for explanation. If correct, my claim that the proffered critiques fail to undermine FTAs does not per se substantiate specific non-chance-based explanatory hypotheses for FT [fine-tuning], but does vindicate the proffered calls to explain FT.

Fumagalli acknowledges that

In recent years, several prominent authors have criticized fine-tuning arguments for failing to show that the universe’s purported fine-tuning for intelligent life calls for explanation. In this paper, I provide a systematic categorization and a detailed evaluation of the proffered critiques. I argue that these critiques cast doubt on various instances of fine-tuning reasoning, but fail to undermine fine-tuning arguments’ conclusion that the universe’s purported fine-tuning for intelligent life calls for explanation.[7]

Notably, Fumagalli never mentioned God, in spite of the fact that God is central to the fine- tuning argument. Perhaps he was just following standard academic constraints in order ensure his paper would not be rejected by the publishers. If so, that was a very wise choice.

Tension in Darwin’s House of Cards

Although the task of science is to investigate and describe the workings of the universe, contemporary scientific practice typically operates within an evolutionary and naturalistic framework (i.e., methodological naturalism). As a result, interpretations that point toward intelligent design are often set aside, even when empirical findings reveal high levels of complexity, information, and fine-tuning.

Nevertheless, as scientific understanding continues to advance, these features of the universe become increasingly difficult to ignore. It is my conclusion that the data supporting design will only continue to grow over time. The paper on fine-tuning reviewed here is one example of many that highlight data raising serious questions about the ability of random, undirected natural processes to account for the universe in which we live.

For this reason, I intentionally focus my reading on papers written in support of evolution, believing that careful examination of the data they present often reveals tensions between the evidence itself and the evolutionary interpretations imposed upon it.

References

[1] Tanner, A., “Does Evolution Kill or Prove God?,” https://tannerontruth.com/does-evolution-kill-or-prove-god-1685d84a3003, 2026.

[2]  Russo, Claudia, “Evolutionary Genetics,” Molecular Biology 42(1), https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-4685-GMB-2018-0086 linkcopy, January-March 2019.

[3] Silva, H.M., “Intelligent design endangers education,” Science 357(6354):880, 1 September 2017.

[4] Tanner, 2026.

[5] McLatchie, Jonathan, “New Peer-Reviewed Paper Defends Cosmic Fine-Tuning Argument,” https://scienceandculture.com/2026/01/new-peer-reviewed-paper-defends-cosmic-fine-tuning-argument/, 14 January 2026.

[6] Fumagalli, 2025. Roberto, roberto.fumagalli@kcl.ac.uk; https://www.kcl.ac.uk/people/roberto-fumagalli.

[7] Fumagalli, Roberto, “The Universe’s Fine‑Tuning Does Call for Explanation,” https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10838-025-09734-8, 14 November 2025.

---

Dr. Jerry Bergman has taught biology, genetics, chemistry, biochemistry, anthropology, geology, and microbiology for over 40 years at several colleges and universities including Bowling Green State University, Medical College of Ohio where he was a research associate in experimental pathology, and The University of Toledo. He is a graduate of the Medical College of Ohio, Wayne State University in Detroit, the University of Toledo, and Bowling Green State University. He has over 1,900 publications in 14 languages and 40 books and monographs. His books and textbooks that include chapters that he authored are in over 1,800 college libraries in 27 countries. So far over 80,000 copies of the 60 books and monographs that he has authored or co-authored are in print. For more articles by Dr Bergman, see his Author Profile.