Not my problem. Physical laws are stare decissis. If you want to argue for extraordinary suspension of such laws, the burden of proof is on you.
I am saying that you cannot demonstrate that the process has not been guided. To make that statement, which I dont believe you can honestly refute, I don't need to violate any physical law.
Current physics says the continued operation of the earth is deterministic and runs according to laws we've already determined. If you want some exterior intervention, you need to say why certain of those laws were modified or ceased to operate.
Really, why does he have to do that?
I guess if you insist that current physics is deterministic, you must be using a classical hidden variables interpretation of quantum mechanics, in which case (thanks to the observed violation of Bell's Inequalities) you're stuck with action-at-a-distance. (Last I heard we both have neurons whose firing is dependent on single quantum mechanical events, so if you want determinism, your stuck with action-at-a-distance.)
And even if you have supreme confidence that thermal effects prevent any macroscopic consequences of quantum mechanical events (except maybe the disturbance in the air caused by physicists whooping it up when a 'quantum eraser' experiment gives a bizarre counter-intuitive result), what possible operational meaning can your 'determinism' have when so many of the models we have for classical dyanamical systems (weather and climate for instance) exhibit chaotic dynamics so that even were there an exact correspondence between the physical system and the Platonic ideal of the mathematical model, epistemologically there is no determinism anyway, since one can't know the initial conditions precisely enough to make predictions?
"Not my problem. Physical laws are stare decissis"
That means defined and decided.
Maybe they are defined and decided by God but man is still working on them. We don't have general agreement on how many dimensions it takes to define the universe much less a theory to explain them.
"Current physics says the continued operation of the earth is deterministic and runs according to laws we've already determined. If you want some exterior intervention, you need to say why certain of those laws were modified or ceased to operate."
1. It is not deterministic because that would not account for chaos effects.
2. My statement is simply that science cannot exclude the existence of of a higher power guiding things. You seem to think I said I can prove there is a higher power and that is not at all what I said
A larger point is that by making statements that are false that the universe is deterministic and that God is excluded then you are, rather ironically, making the same mistake of giving up that ID people are prone to make and also playing into their hands strategically - just like them you seek to cast this as science versus religion when there is no conflict for reasonable, logical men.