Re: [asa] The Parsimony Principle (aka Occam's Razor) and atheism

> The argument goes something like this. Because the laws of physics and the
> theory of evolution can explain, in principle, everything there is,
> including all the complexity of life, etc, there is no need to invoke a
> Creator to explain it all. A universe without a Creator is a simpler, and
> therefore more parsimonious, explanation than a universe with a Creator.
> Hence the god-less universe is to be preferred.

This makes the assumption that the physical universe is all that there
is, or at least all that's interesting. Thus, it's circular
reasoning. If one wants a solid basis for morality (not merely an
explanation of its evolutionary origins but a reason why I ought to do
something), or accepts evidence of things besides the physical
universe, then physics, etc. do not explain everything.

> However, I think this argument is flawed, for the following reason. Occam's
> Razor, or the principle of parsimony is certainly to be used and encouraged
> in trying to decide between different scientific models. For example, I
> have a bunch of data and I have to fit a polynomial curve through it.

Why bother with the model or the curve? Why not simply amass a pile
of data points? All the real world information is there. Isn't a
model-less universe simpler than one with a model? No, because
science also seeks to produce models, and fewer general models is seen
as more parsimonious and more desirable than numerous special case
models or a mere pile of data. Continuing such reasoning, God
provides an ultimate explanation of everything (though of course we
can't directly reason from Him to, e.g., E=mcc) and thus including Him
makes the model more parsimonious than excluding Him.

Another example of misuse of parsimony comes from some advocates of a
particular approach (called maximum parsimony) to the generation of
evolutionary trees. Some lose sight of the fact that the goal is to
represent the data and advocate more parsimonious against less
parsimonious (at least by the particular metric, which is not entirely
appropriate as a comparison) but reflecting the uncertainty in the
data.

In his review of Conway Morris in Books and Culture, Dembski accepts
the atheistic Occam argument and therefore claims that ID is necessary
for religion.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.