I'd accuse you of quote mining, but you haven't read the original article, I presume? It looks like you have just taken it from
Sean McDowell who writes
quote:
title of one of the main articles should sum it up: “A Universe Built for Us” (pp. 52-58). Discover is one of the most widely read popular-level science magazines. And like the vast majority of science journals and magazines, it is decidedly naturalistic. Nevertheless, the article went on to describe how our cosmos “seems inexplicably well designed for life” (52).
Which looks uncannily like
As well, re: December 2008 issue of Discovery Magazine's article, “A Universe Built for Us” (pp. 52-58):
Discovery Magazine, one of the most widely read naturalistic science journals featured an article by Tim Fogler who said that our our universe “seems inexplicably well designed for life” (52).
He also writes:
quote:
The reason Tim Fogler, the author of the article, concluded the universe appears designed is because of how exquisitely the laws of physics are fine-tuned for the emergence and sustenance of life. Fogler says the properties of the universe “are uncannily suited for life. Tweak the laws of physics in just about any way and”in this universe, anyway”life as we know it would not exist” (52).
Which looks a lot like
Tim Fogler, author of the article, cited the fact that the laws of physics are fine-tuned to emerge and sustain life, having properties which “are uncannily suited for life. Tweak the laws of physics in just about any way and”in this universe, anyway”life as we know it would not exist” (52).
Buz - when you are essentially copying someone else's blog entry as closely as you have (with token changes) it would be polite to at least cite it. The biggest clue is that both Sean McDowell and you uncannily spell Tim Folger's name as Tim
Fogler. What do you know - I'm using point mutations to ascertain common ancestry
Anyway,
here is the article, the full quote reads:
Call it a fluke, a mystery, a miracle. Or call it the biggest problem in physics. Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse. Most of those universes are barren, but some, like ours, have conditions suitable for life.
The rest of the article is Tim Folger trying to explain the multiverse theory to a lay audience.
Discover magazine isn't really a journal by the way - you should have kept Sean McDowell's wording of 'popular-level science magazines' since that is actually accurate. It's a fairly balanced article that explains the ideas, the different flavours, the philosophical problems with it and the like.
Edited by Modulous, : reworded a sentence to make more sense.