Here's the thing when it comes to remarkable bunches of constants. We could, for all we know, be in the one universe, out of billions of failed Big Bangs, that actually worked. There is no-one in those billions of failures to sit around claiming that their version never made it. We are here now, sitting around talking about it, because we are the winners. One success in billions is no more a miracle, needing a God to explain it, than one success in two. If you are reading this, you are doing so because one in particular out of tens of thousands of your mother's eggs fused with one in particular out of hundreds of billions of your father's sperms. The odds against that egg fusing with that sperm are massive. But you are here and it is not a miracle that you are here. No law of nature was breached in getting you here. It's remarkable all right but it is not magic and it did not require magic to bring it about. I've just watched a little spider crawling up my wall. I can be almost certain that that spider, or any spider, has never crawled up my wall along that precise route in the past and never will in the future. It was almost certainly a unique crawl. But that does not mean that it was a miraculous crawl or a fine-tuned crawl. Finally, I should like to hear a proper explanation of where this planner or fine-tuner came from. Who planned and fine-tuned him. It strikes me that a good way forward is to construct hypotheses based on our genuine human observations and experiences that we can test with evidence. What is not a good way forward is to propose a being who is set beyond evidence. Someone could have told Sir Fred that you can't explain things that are difficult to explain by inventing an explanation that is in itself impossible to explain (and for what, embarrassingly after many millennia of striving, there is not a scrap of evidence).