I am currently researching evolution;does Occams Razor prove it?

Question

I asked a question about evolution.One of the answerers said that Occams Razor made evolution look simpler and more reasonable than creation, but which of these two scenarios seems simpler:
1)EVOLUTION: We evolved from lower order life forms.This theory does not explain how the universe came about.We have to investigate the origin of the universe by other scientific means.You cannot explain evolution with few words,and some of these explanations seem beyond the understanding of some ordinary mortals.I am not speaking about the complex nature of life,but the process of evolution itself.
2)CREATION: God created the universe,the Earth and life on Earth.The process is explained in two chapters of Genesis plus some scattered verses throughout the rest of the Bible.This seems to be the simpler of the two explanations as it uses fewer words and explains everything from the birth of the universe to the creation of life.
Maybe I'm missing the point.Please don't berate me,just enlighten me.

Answer 1

Occam's Razor does not prove evolution. The evidence proves evolution.

Your question is based on a misunderstanding of the principle of Occam's Razor. It is not about how many words it takes to explain, or even "the simplest answer is the correct one", or, but "the answer that explains the evidence best and posits the fewest entities".

Creationism violates Occam's Razor because it takes the same evidence as science does, but posits an extra, infinitely complex, entity - ie God - as necessary to explain it.

Science says "we can explain this without invoking an extra entity which is more complicated than the universe, for which there is no evidence, and which has no explanation".

Answer 2

Evolution is scientific fact, which is proven by genetics and fossil records, and also by living proof. What I've always considered to be the best proof of evolution is the peppered moth which Darwin
observed evolving in his time.

The vast majority of peppered moths were white in pre-industrial Britain (with a small percentage of black ones), and were very well camouflaged against the white lichen covered trees of the time and hence were rarely eaten by birds and other predators. However pollution from factories after the Industrial Revolution caused the lichen to die and the trees to blacken, leaving the white peppered moths sticking out like sore thumbs and the black "mutant" ones to be camouflaged.

Darwin observed his natural selection/survival of the fittest himself over a number of years as the white moths became practically extinct and the black moths became the dominant, as they were better suited to survive in their new environment.

In modern times, as Britain has become less polluting and more environmentally aware the white peppered moth is making a comeback in the very same forest, and the number's of black ones are again dwindling. Proof of Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest.

Also, in answer to your first statement, granted the current theory of evolution doesn't explain the beginning's of the universe (which it shouldn't as evolution on Earth has very little to do with that), but similarly the Creation Theory doesn't explain the beginnings and origins of God. If you need an explanation of the creation of the universe, how can you except that God just 'was', and not need an explanation of his creation?

Answer 3

If you are really interested in researching evolution then I recommend that you also look at cutting edge creationist arguments, and you can do no better than visit
http://www.answersingenesis.org/

It is important to understand that everyone has exactly the same evidence - which exists in the present. Creationists and evolutionists interpret the same evidence with different worldviews. That is different assumptions about the past and different philosophical approaches.

People who dismiss creation as 'unscientific', or who claim that evolution (or creation) is 'proved', have missed the point. They either don't understand what science is, or want to hoodwink people into agreeing with them. The definition of science is knowledge.

It is not possible to prove anything about our origins using the scientific method, which involves observation, testing, repeating.

If one was to take an unbiased approach, one would ask simply which of creation and evolution provides the best explanation of the observed evidence. It is difficult ot take an unbiased approach, since we all have a worldview.

Evolutionists such as Dawkins dismiss creation a priori as unscientific. In fact they are being unscientific to discount one possible explanation on religious (atheistic) grounds.

I used to believe that evolution was the best explanation of origins, but then I discovered that there is an awful lot of evidence which contradicts evolution, which is 'hidden' by evolutionists and most of the media. But if you check Aig you will see that evolution is quite easy to to refute scientifcally.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/RE2/index.asp

I can't believe that contributor below is claiming that peppered moths is proof of evolution. It is natural selection no more no less. Nothing to do with goo-to-you evolution. Back to school...

Answer 4

In addition to some of the other comments, you should research the watchmaker theory as it is a Christian extension of Occams Razor first proposed by theological scholars shortly after Darwin's initial publication.

It states that a man (or indeed women but for the sake of the argument a man) is walking across a barren moor or heath with nothing around and comes across a beautifull gold watch on a chain with hundreds of intricate and individual working parts. There are two possible arguments for how the watch came into existence. One is that the watch evolved, gradually developing from raw materials and fashioning itself into a fully working watch in response to chance and its environment. The second is that there was a watchmaker.

Good luck with the research.

Answer 5

No!

Fossils and Genetics, proove it.

Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or "shaving off," those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. In short, when given two equally valid explanations for a phenomenon, one should embrace the less complicated formulation. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae (law of succinctness):

entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem,
which translates to:

entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.

Technically creationism, is the less complicated formula.

Traducianism is an alternative to creationism's other aspects on a religious note.

BY THE WAY. You are forgetting the fastest growing new creation of life theory!!!!

Panspermia is the hypothesis that the seeds of life are ubiquitous in the Universe, that they may have delivered life to Earth, and that they may deliver or have delivered life to other habitable bodies; also the process of such delivery.

Exogenesis is a related, but less radical, hypothesis that simply proposes that life did not originate on Earth, but was transferred to Earth from elsewhere in the Universe, with no prediction about how widespread life is. The term "panspermia" is more well-known, however, and tends to be used in reference to what would properly be called exogenesis, too.

That's what I believe, it wasn't God, it was aliens

...you are entering the twilight zone.

Occum's Razor doesn't establish proof! It nearly acts as a tool for logical analysis to narrow down possible answers.

OCCUM'S RAZOR HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PROOF!!!

Answer 6

Occams Razor does not prove anything. Indeed, science does not prove anything. What sciences does do is DISprove that which is untrue.

Occam's Razor is a valid method for determining which of several scientific hypotheses is most likely to be correct. However, it is useless when comparing a fully-formed and well supported scientific theory, like evolution, to non-science, like religion, or pseudo-science, like creationism. It would be like trying to prove the existence of the soul using a scale.

Answer 7

Occam's Razor can't be used to prove anything; it just suggests that of two scenarios, the less complicated one is the more likely.

Biblical Creation isn't necessarily less complicated than evolution. Its complication arises in the necessity, then, of explaining how G-d came into existence.

Answer 8

Occam's razor would favour the simplest explanation and the oe with the least assumptions.

I guess the evolutionary process is simpler and makes the least assumptions.ie we evolved step by step as opposed to assuming there is a god who was also the creator

Answer 9

The only reason why reading the bible will give you the answer is because it was written by ignorant people that needed an answer to everything they can't understand.

Luckly the book of Darwin explains something incredibly complex and diverse in a relatively simple way; natural selection. However, since life is so complex, proving its behaviors and functions requires a complex answer.

Answer 10

both theories examine out diverse a source/ nonsource of nature. Evolution under no circumstances addresses the position count number come from initially. creation says that's created through God. With one of those important distinction, simplification received't choose it