How does he know that the workings of physics are "unintended," particularly when we speak of "the laws of physics"? I don't know of any un-authored laws.
Dawkins makes an a priori assumption, which is the opposite of the a posteriori "scientific method."
How does he know that the workings of physics are "unintended," particularly when we speak of "the laws of physics"? I don't know of any un-authored laws.
Physicists finally started to understand something about how nature works after they stopped asking 'why' objects behave the way they do and started measuring 'how' the objects actually behave. The results of their measurements began to show certain repeatable regularities, and these came to be called 'laws'. But I'm guessing you know this.
Dawkins makes an a priori assumption, which is the opposite of the a posteriori "scientific method."
The scientific method isn't a posteriori, its results are.
Are you trying to say that the laws of physics have some goal in mind? Are they intelligent in and of themselves?
" I don't know of any un-authored laws"
Stop anthropomorphizing natural occurrences. The 'laws' of nature are human descriptions of natural consistencies. We observe something that occurs the same way every time and can be modeled mathematically so we call them 'laws'.
Some people will do anything, including play semantic games, to make it look like there 'has to be' an intelligent designer.
You make it sound as if 'a priori' is in all cases bad. Sometimes 'assumptions', such as the noninterference of the supernatural, must be made to enable certainty of conclusion. Generally assumptions like that are based on the consistency of nature and are more accurately called 'conclusions'.