Flew quoted John Leslie:
1. The principle of special relativity ensures that forces such as electromagnetism have an invariable effect regardless of whether they act at right angles to a system’s direction of travel. This enables genetic codes to work and planets to hold together when rotating.
2. Quantum laws prevent electrons from spiraling into atomic nuclei.
3. Electromagnetism has one-force strength, which enables multiple key processes to take place: it allows stars to burn steadily for billions of years; it enables carbon synthesis in stars; it ensures that leptons do not replace quarks, which would have made atoms impossible; it is responsible for protons not decaying too fast or repelling each other too strongly, which would have made chemistry impossible. How is it possible for the same one-force strength to satisfy so many different requirements, when it seems that different strengths would be required for each one of these processes?
These three views of the nature, quoting physical laws sound very strange to me. As a student of Physics, I never read any scientist saying that the principle of special relativity ensures that forces such as electromagnetism have an invariable effect regardless of whether they act at right angles to a system’s direction of travel. Special theory of relativity assumes the velocity of light to be a constant in vacuum and draw conclusion of the mass energy conservation. Electromagnetism has one-force [???] strength. This totally lost me. Physicists describe several types of forces, including gravitation, electromagnetic, strong and weak forces and so on. Saying electromagnestism is very strange and quoting "one-force strength" is even more weird. By the way, the reaction in stars is nuclear rather than electromagnetic.
The obvious lack of understanding in the most basic concepts of Science is enough to reject any "philosophical" arguments based on such concepts to attack the fundamental of the science.