Why would God change the laws of nature he himself has established? Aren’t they perfect? As Ditfurth once asked: is the world imperfect enough to require constant intervention?
I will put it in other words. We don’t know what happened. We only take some empirical data, and then extrapole currently known laws of nature to the past: this way we tell what we think has happened in the past. But, of course, it is possible that in that the past laws of nature were other than today (i.e. that relatively to what happens today, there was some “intervention”).
But now, the question is: if laws of nature were other in the past (if it proceeded another way...), then either we would have proofs (by seeing something non-standard, i.e. not simple cause-effect but theleology), or empirical data is purposely manipulated so that we come to wrong conclusions (that the world IS simple and causal). But who would bother and why? Who is trying to misguide us? Are we the ones to look for God, or rather should this God say something if we’re to know him? After all, our brains evolved to survive, not to find transcendental truths... if there is no single centre holding all the truth, then everyone will come to other conclusions.
Anyway, it is more important to ask what leads you to survival and power than to desperately look for a god. And this philosopher is apparently a little afraid of the atheist revolution, so he plays god’s advocate now.
You begin with a strawman (presuming to represent how God would act);
... follow with an appeal to common practice ("...only take some empirical data, and then extrapole currently known laws of nature to the past...")
.... couple that with another strawman (you offer only one of many possibly alternatives -- that the laws of nature were different once -- and kick the stuffing out of it as if you had dealt with them all);
... then you present a false dilemma ("But now, the question is: if ... then either...")
... there are probably a few more between middle and end, but I tired of looking for them;
... and to finish it off, you end up with a nice juicy ad hominem against the professor himself.
All in all an impressive performance. Nicely done.
How did our brains know what they'd need to become "to survive"?