I think you have fundamentally mistaken idea of what is meant by fine tuning. When Dr. Craig or Dr. Robin Collins state that the universe is fine-tuned they are making a neutral, objective, scientifically verifiable statement about the nature of our universe. As just one example, they are observing that if the forces of expansion and forces on contraction that we observe in our universe were slightly different, then the universe would have either collapsed shortly after it came into existence or expanded so rapidly that matter would be too dispersed for stars and planets to form. Under either scenario, intelligent life could not exist, nor could snowflakes, ice cream cones or even table tennis tables. Under this definition of fine tuning, it would be equally true to say that the universe is fine tuned for the existence of life, or any of the above material objects.When I say that fine tuning is a neutral, and objective fact about our Universe, I am saying that one can recognize that the universe is fine turned without making any assumptions about the existence of God or the value of life. This is why the following people can all recognize the objective fact that the Universe is fine-tuned: Richard Dawkins, an outspoken atheist; Freeman Dyson, a theoretical physicist and agnostic; William Craig and Robbin Collins, two proponent theistic philosophers. It is also why it doesn't matter whether one says that the Universe is fine-tuned for the existence of life or for the existence of snow flakes. Both require fine-tuning as the term is used in the teleological argument.