One problem with Hugh Ross and his assumptions is that he starts off with an incorrect question. He begins by asking,
What are the chances of finding another Earth-like planet capable of sustaining life?
which is simply a nonsense question for several reasons.
First, what is an earth-like planet? Is it the earth as it was 4+ billion years ago? Is the earth before the moon? Is it the earth today?
Second, we are defining life based on a sample size of exactly one. And even with that limitation, we can't even define what exactly is a living organism. Is it you and me? How about the early proto-bacteria? How about viruses? What about extremophiles?
As is so often the case, he is approaching the issue from a human-centric point of view. While that is common, and I must admit that personally, I too prefer a human-centric world, it has nothing to do with the question of life.
There is nothing that I can see that seems to indicate that either our solar system or the universe in general have been fine-tuned.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion