Claim CA240:
Ockham's Razor says the simplest explanation should be preferred. That
explanation is creation.
Source:
Morris, John D., 1999 (15 Sep., 10:00-11:00 PDT), "Forum", KQED radio.
Response:
- Ockham's Razor does not say that the simplest explanation should be
favored. It says that entities should not be multiplied beyond
necessity (non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem). In
other words, new principles should not be invoked if existing
principles already provide an explanation. If, however, the simpler
explanation does not cover all the details, then additional "entities"
are necessary.
- Creationism is not an explanation. An explanation tells why something
is one way instead of an alternative way. But creationism does not
rule out any alternatives, since a creator God could have done
anything. Because of this, creationism adds nothing to any argument.
Thus, creationism is an unnecessary entity and, by Ockham's Razor,
should be eliminated.
created 2001-2-18