PS -- there are generally two solutions.
First, is the constants really finely tuned? we dont know what the constants in nature really are, only the constants in the current theories (which we know are wrong). Also, i think you would be surpriced that many of the"constants" could be changed by quite a bit and still give reasonable universes.
Secondly, this presuppose there is only one universe. In some models of inflation, there has to be other universes (notice these models is not introduced to solve a fine-tuning problem, but to explain the microwave background). I personally find this more appealing in a sence. It seem strange our universe, born less than 14 billion years ago and allready well under way to tear itself apart, should be the only one (even if there is a God).
In this respect, it is often argued that such a solution is very unattractive because it introduce many other universes. i think its good to notice that fine-tuning arguments could have been made in the past about the earth, ie. its size and so on, but these were proven wrong because it turned out the universe was A LOT larger than we thought at the time, and earth-like planets are very likely common. In similar ways, other parts of the fine-tuning argument has been proven to not be a problem.
Finally: Consider the alternative: "God made it so". God could have made it IN ANY WAY HE WANTED (why should God have humans in mind?). its a very flexible explanation, not exactly a virtue amongst scientific theories...