"The issue of the accelerating expansion of the universe is certainly a marvel. Indeed, the "scientific" explanations are exclusively in the realm of pure speculation. Most practicing scientists understand this without the explicit and rather pedantic qualifications. However, I don't see how it supports the ID viewpoint at all. It is just one more marvel of the universe like quantum mechanics and relativity."
As I understand it, and maybe I don't (I am simply "a layman" but I am also holding Tippler and Barrow's "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" in my hand - written before the Accelerating Expansion revelation, by the way, but still absolutely relevant - even more so now, I think) what it does is discount the infinite series of very slightly different universes (until they repeat - yes, even infinities repeat apparently - see Rudy Rucker's "Infinity and the Mind"), where chance would find one just like this one that would eventually support life. No need for God in such a case and a refutation of an Intelligently Designed universe. (The absolutley meaningless existence of Nietche's Eternal Return - as cited by Tippler and Barrow a number of times - that's why I brought it up.) The fact that we have discovered that it won't collapse back means that this universe is much, much more special (unique) than previously thought. And that would mean that its special characteristics that support life look near infinitely improbable (1 in 10^123 is just one example - multiply that against the other chance events and the number gets even more improbable) to have happened by chance (but still not impossible).
So, yes, "the only universe that we could possible observe is the one that we do observe." But if this is the only one, which, apparently, looks more and more likely, then there are no probabilities to cancel out anything and it looks like somebody or something or some group of somebodies (or whatever) desgned it, doesn't it?
At least as I understand it.
Wow, you are really reading about this stuff. Hey, betty boop, we have a live one!! (grin) Ms. Boop and I have been discussing this in these threads, but we have been using "The Whole Shebang" by Timothy Ferris. In large measure the reason is that my graduate school textbook: "Structure and Evolution of the Stars" by Martin Schwarzshild is hopelessly out of date. I have also copied a couple of other experts on this.
A couple of points though.
First, there may be a difference between science and philosophy on these issues. The science community never considered the oscillating universe to be one where the physics constants would gradually change. The real reason for either the steady state universe (asymptotically approaching infinity, gravitational mass just balances outward energy) and the collapsing universe was that the continually expanding universe was asymmetric. That is, it had a definite starting point but no definite end.
The idea of the multiverse has nothing to do with the oscillating (expand, collapse, expand...) universe, at least in the scientific community. The idea of the multiverse comes from the following observations:
1. The universe is accelerating in its expansion.
2. The constants in nature are exact and the likelihood is 10^123, as you point out.
3. Quantum mechanics and general relativity are inconsistent in observable black holes, yet we know both theories are correct everywhere else. As a result of this we have been developing quantum gravity theories and those involve multiple dimensions, and
4. Inflation. Inflation is theorized because of the uniformity of the cosmic microwave background. In the early universe, the universe was in quasi-equilibrium with itself. As the universe expanded, this equilibrium shifted to different, longer range and weaker forces. Finally, the universe expanded to the point where it was in radiative equilibrium (the same physics as the Planck black body radiation law). The matter was in equilibrium with the radiation field. Now, at this point the universe was in radiative quilibrium (e.g. it was optically thick), but it was sufficiently cool that gravity should have begun to coalesce the matter into dense gaseous clouds, perhaps even protostars. Then, the universe continued to expand to become optically thin, and the radiation field was no longer in equilibrium with the matter. (The radiation field cooled due to the expansion of the Universe and became the microwave background today). If the coalescing had occurred, it would have caused "lumpiness" in the microwave background. But that is not observed. So the current theory is that the universe inflated, meaning it expanded much more rapidly, so the gravitational process did not have time to produce the clumpiness. Such an inflation would be consistent with present observation.
Personally, I have a little trouble with this. The expansion of the universe is first fast, then slow, and is now speeding up again. I wish it would make up its mind. :}
Nevertheless, these four issues lead to the idea of the multiverse, which would be a higher dimensional fabric in which universes begin and expand like bubbles in boiling syrup. Lots of bubbles. Lots of universes. All separated by higher order dimensions.
And these universes would have different physical constants because there would be no reason for them to be the same. Indeed, there could/would be higher dimensional physics that would provide the conservation laws (i.e. if this much were true, we would expect the constants to be different).
The point of this is that you can, most definitely have multiple universes with different constants. And you could have the one universe where everything just worked out so that life, intelligent life could evolve. And we would observe this one universe. However, it would be a fallacy for us to assume that we were the only universe in existance, because only in the "proper" universe would anyone exist to observe it. Namely, the probabilities do indeed cancel out.
Well, that's the science. Now, what about opinion and faith??
Personally, I don't believe in the multiverse and I don't believe that this particular universe was created just by happenstance. The reason is my personal faith and also my observation that God's creation is unbelievably economical and elegant. I just don't see lots of universe where the constants are wrong just to get one that is right.
But that is my opinion and faith only.
And, as a scientist, I also know that science and faith are different. They can speak to one another, but they are still separate. So, my faith is my faith and my science is my science. In the final analysis I believe, as a matter of faith, that the 10^123 argument indicates this universe was created by God, but as a scientist I know this is not proof.
OTOH. I find that God's creation of evolution to create life a much more subtle, intricate, and elegant creation than that postulated by either ID or creationism. IT is much more beautiful. Perhaps because it is more difficult to design the system that produces the life than to just design the life itself. Perhaps, God did create the multiverse, and He used cosmic evolution to find the right physics constants to produce the evolutionary system that then produced life.
Now, that would be some creation!