"understanding as a consequence of "impersonal" laws acting over billions of years"
This has been argued before. His use of the term "impersonal" as a modifier lays a theological constraint on the word "laws". "Impersonal laws" is a metaphysical assertion. Tell me exactly how he has demonstrated that the laws are "impersonal"?
"we are not the playthings of supernatural intervention"
Again how does one demonstrate through the proximate causes of the physical universe that something supernatural is not using us as a plaything?
Again how does one demonstrate through the proximate causes of the physical universe that something supernatural is not using us as a plaything?PMFJI, but that's the same kind of challenge that Fatalis is making above.
Remember: Which side is making the positive claim, and which is making the negative claim? And therefore who has the obligation to come up with some kind of positive evidence for their claim and who doesn't?
It's reasonable for our side to ask for some evidence for your positive claim. Is it reasonable for you to ask us for positive evidence for our negative claim?