The only relevant observation I have is a similar realization regarding biology and medicine... there are too many finely tuned systems which interact... it would be so unlikely that the machinery of a cell 'evolved' in the Brownian-motion-to-Darwin-survival model espoused by just about everyone in contemporary science, that I find the situation comical.
Keep thoughts like that to yourself, though, or you will find yourself out of work in most universities.
Hoyle was at least honest about it. Others are not. The simple truth is that the big bang defined all of the universe. Prior to it, the laws of nature weren’t defined. The theories behind the big bang explain, very clearly, that at the energy levels involved in the creation of the universe, the masses of particles and the energies of the fundamental forces of nature become meaningless. The only way to know what happened in the big bang is to recreate it, which we will not do for obvious reasons.
I have no trouble believing that God can create a universe that is 13 billion years old or 5,700 years old. I have sincere peoblems with athiests who claim that since we can not understand the beginning of the universe, it proves that there is no god. That’s not just illogical, it’s stupid.
As to the origin of life, we can’t even define life. Have we determined if viruses are living things yet? I think it was Robert Heinlen who threw a lovely monkey wrench into the definition of life in Stranger In A Strange Land, although I could be wrong about the book.
Might I suggest that you visit the Astronomy Picture of the Day threads? (I post them.) The science of it is linked and often insightful, and the pictures are really cool. :)