Well that is a rather pesky point your raise Gnu - certainly making me think 
Sorry about that. Feel free to minus 1 me.

What is the implication? That somebody or something (a god) set up the "narrow parameters" before or during the big bang?
The facts are there, they require an explanation. Science is working on it.
The distracting Goldibollocks thought process is creationist thinking no matter how far back we try to push it
I disagree.
I understand that the Goldilocks question has been enthusiastically embraced by creationists - with them jumping straight to the creationist answer, of course. But the question is still worth asking, why do the dimensionless physical constants have the values they do? And could they be different?
Don't ask me; I'm a gnu.
But you can find an overview of the question in
Paul Davies' The Goldilocks Enigma, 2007. From wiki:
{The book} reviews the current state of the fine tuning debate in detail, and concludes by enumerating the following responses to that debate:
1. The absurd universe
Our universe just happens to be the way it is.
2. The unique universe
There is a deep underlying unity in physics which necessitates the universe being the way it is. Some Theory of Everything will explain why the various features of the Universe must have exactly the values that we see.
3. The multiverse
Multiple Universes exist, having all possible combinations of characteristics, and we inevitably find ourselves within a Universe that allows us to exist.
4. Creationism
A creator designed the Universe with the purpose of supporting complexity and the emergence of Intelligence.
5. The life principle
There is an underlying principle that constrains the universe to evolve towards life and mind.
6. The self-explaining universe
A closed explanatory or causal loop: "perhaps only universes with a capacity for consciousness can exist." This is Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP).
7. The fake universe
We live inside a virtual reality simulation.
Do you have a preferred answer, William? I guess most people here would go for 2 or 6. Being a pantheist, I tend towards 5, but that in turn raises teleological questions...
Anyway, it's an interesting read.
Or, you could read
Just Six Numbers, The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe, by
Martin Rees, 2000.
Rees is a Catholic, Davies I'm not sure about - but neither of them are creationists, and they're both capable of distingushing between belief and fact. And they're both respected scientists.
Gnu.
PS Sorry William, I wasn't condescendingly suggesting that you ought to go and read some books, just trying to demonstrate that the Goldilocks question is worth addressing. Penrose, Hawking and Weinberg have also written about it. It's a good question.