Displaying an even weaker understanding of philosophy and science, D’Souza claimed that since there are laws of nature, there must be a lawgiver. I pointed out that this is an equivocation. Most Philosophy 101 students know that there is a difference between prescriptive laws (like the highway speed limit) and descriptive laws (like the inverse-square law of gravitational attraction). D’Souza is comparing apples and oranges, hoping to confuse gullible believers, although I was told that many in that Harvard audience immediately saw right through his slippery tactic.
