I’m curious your reasons for saying fine tuning does not necessitate a supernatural designer. Most I have read on this subject agree that the facts of fine tuning force a choice between chance or design. If it is chance we have the troublesome response of the multiverse, if design we have the troublesome issue of a creator.

Considering “the God hypothesis” seems to present an obstacle to conducting science for many. That is understandable as it apparently forces one to throw one’s hands up and say, OK God did it, no more inquiry needed. But, that was not the case with the founders of science such as Newton. Nor is it the case with current or recent leaders in science such as Francis Collins or John Polkinghorne among many. It doesn’t change our curiosity at all, it just changes what we understand about our motives. Instead of pursuing science to show that the anti-theist position is correct and everything operates by accident or purposeless laws, science can be pursued as an act of worship, a desire to know how the creator has done what he has done. This was certainly the approach that Kepler expressed as have many following him.

Also, as Steven Meyer has pointed out, a design hypothesis can lead to productive new avenues of research. The discovery that “junk DNA” is not useless as thought but has a distinctive purpose is one example he offers.