There are many scientists who state this and this is based on the science ie
In a BBC science documentary, “The Anthropic Principle,” some of the greatest scientific minds of our day describe the recent findings which compel this conclusion.
Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University Observatories:
If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature — like the charge on the electron — then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.
Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University:
If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfGCyqN4XAo
Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics acknowledges fine tuning
how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.
The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life
The claim is that in the space of possible physical laws, parameters and initial conditions, the set that permits the evolution of intelligent life is very small. I present here a review of the scientific literature, outlining cases of fine-tuning in the classic works of Carter, Carr and Rees, and Barrow and Tipler, as well as more recent work.
The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life
The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life
Leonard Susskind is a famous mainstream physicist and he writes
"To make the first 119 decimal places of the vacuum energy zero is most certainly no accident."
“Logically, it is possible that the laws of physics conspire to create an almost but not quite perfect cancellation [of the energy involved in the quantum fluctuations]. But then it would be an extraordinary coincidence that that level of cancellation—119 powers of ten, after all—just happened by chance to be what is needed to bring about a universe fit for life. How much chance can we buy in scientific explanation? One measure of what is involved can be given in terms of coin flipping: odds of 10^120 to one is like getting heads no fewer than four hundred times in a row. if the existence of life in the universe is completely independent of the big fix mechanism—if it’s just a coincidence—then those are the odds against our being here. That level of flukiness seems too much to swallow.”
Even Stephen Hawkins acknowledges the fine tuning of life.
Stephen Hawking writes in A Brief History of Time, p. 125:
"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life" (p. 125)
They are a non-verifiable explanation.
Please refer to the above links where scientists state that any slight variation will produce a different outcome where there is no life ie
Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics
how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.
The above links mention many constants that need to be fined tuned.
Weinberg states the laws of nature, not a law of nature need to be fined tuned. Hawking states the values and constants of physics and not just one value or constant but many need to be fined tuned ie
"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life"