Reply to William Lane Craig: A splendid development of specific instances of adaptive order in support of the minor premise of the teleological argument, although it assumes a high level of competence in philosophy of science--which many serious readers (including myself) might lack; a most impressive critique of the Anthropic Principle as entailing the claim that the basic features of the universe require no explanation (scientifically or philosophically) from a teleological theistic point of view; but I am not sure that "surprise" (about excessively improbable features which are necessary conditions of our existence) is the right emphasis--the point is that complex adaptations to produce a valuationally significant end(s) requires some plausible explanation (as the naturalistic rejoinders themselves presuppose); so it is a question of relative plausiblity as an explanation of the admitted adaptive features; as you point out, the World Ensemble (or wider universe) thesis itself provokes a teleological explanation--a result that holds whether or not the notion of an actually infinite number of universes is logically objectionable (as you and I suppose); the notion of the actual existence of all logically possible worlds seems to be only a variant of the World Ensemble thesis; the Neo-Platonic alternative, as an explanation is (as you argue) even lesss plausible--and I agree that the coherenceof the concept of God as a logically necessary being does not depend on the success or otherwise of the ontological argument. Thanks, Bill, for a fine piece of work!