If Occam's Razor, then Intelligent Design?

Question

Intelligent Design is the most elegant theory.

Any complex scientific demonstration of micro-minutae is irrelevant. The facts are clear: evolutionary biology &c is far too complicated to be a convincing explanation ever.

Answer 1

If I were to use the concept of Occam's razor for this subject, I'd find in favor of evolution. After all, which is the simpler solution: The permanence of simple forms of energy and matter in the universe that coalesce or separate within the intrinsic rules of physics, or the existence of an permanent, omnipotent, paternal being with a penchant of making an entire universe out of non-existing raw material in the vacuum of space.

Explaining a permanent omnipotent being is far more complicated than explaining permanent simple building blocks of the universe.

Answer 2

Hmmm. No. The caveat with Occam's Razor is "All things equal...the simple explanation is the most likely." That little intro phrase about all things equal doesn't allow Occam's Razor to "prove" Intelligent Design. The razor is only a paradigm not a method nor an answer per say. It's a way of conceptualizing that helps us flit closer and closer to what really is.

That said, neither does the razor preclude intelligent design theory, but there are inherent complexities with that theory that, given your rationale, would make it as suspect as evolutionary biology.

It's just not that simple no matter how you dice it.

Answer 3

I have read a lot on Ockham, even a part of his commentary of Lombardus' Sententiae - which is extremely complicated. An intelligable account can be found in "Elisbeth Krager, Ockham's misunderstood theory of intuitive and abstractive cognition." But for those who do not have an academic library at their disposal, I will point out why Ockham is incompatible with ID here.
What his so called razor in effect does, is excluding unnecessary ontological grounds, not just complex entities. So an assumption like "God is the Creator" is canceled out. (In medieval times ID wasn't popular by the way, so his contemporaries didn't hate him for that reason.)
By the way, a theory like evolutionary biology is, like all scientific theories one that proves certain things; in this case that is evolution, the diversification of life. So no explanation for the actual diversity, the essence of life, the first cause of life etc. is claimed!

All things considered, when it comes to spiritual matters, it is the same as in life: it is vital to know what you don't know... For if you want to know all, and rely on an extra mental yet abstractive entity for truth, blunders are bound to happen. This is what Ockham teaches, just like so many other reasonable people!

Answer 4

No, no, no, no, no... Elegant does not mean simplistic. Elegant means, in this context, that any superfluous (unnecessary) entities have been taken out of the equation. The problem with intelligent design in this context is that it posits an entity (God) which is not being used by evolutionary theorists AND that offers no advantages in terms of explanation.
Intelligent design also suffers from the further problems that it fails to explain vestigial organs, the proximity of related species (hundreds of thousands of species of beetles) and, of course, the fossil record.

Cordova: Infinite regression is a problem of ANY explanation. Where did God come from? We can play all day.

Answer 5

The answer to the origin of apparent complexity is not to presuppose it was created by an even greater complexity. You don't explain a seeming improbability by a greater improbability. We know how complexity arises in complex systems and it is through selection. In the case of biological systems it is through Natural Selection. You don't need to violate Occam's razor by presupposing an infinitely improbable creator to do it.


Look at Wolfram's rule 110, the rule is trivially simple ( Just one line of computer code ). Yet it has been mathematically been proven that it generates any level of complexity desired. You only need to "select" where in the output of that rule you wish to look. Indeed it has been mathematically proven that somewhere within that output one can find any finite output you wish to find. You can find a representation of all of Shakespeare, or all of the DNA of every living thing, or even everything within the observable universe. The output as a whole is kolmogorov simple however within that simplicity one can select unlimited complexity. The key here is the word "select". Local complexity is selected from simplicity and variance.

In the case of our own existence we have a profound selection mechanism: Our own existence" We have selected a locally complex region of reality because only local complexity enables our existence and evolution.

Answer 6

There is nothing scientific about Intelligent Design. Where's the empirical data? Where are the experiments? Where are the publications in scientific journals. It's a very vague hypothesis depending on faith. Which is all right if that's what you wish to believe, but don't call it science.

Answer 7

You're right. Rather than try to explain the basis behind any natural process like fire or electricity, we should just declare them to be miracles and go back into our cold dark caves satisfied that this world that God generously provided for us is fine just as it is.

Getting to pick and choose which science to believe has always been a perk of religious fanatics. The Church chided Copernicus for trying to say that the Earth was not the center of the universe. His theory was much too complicated too.

Answer 8

No. Evolution is a primary, stylish concept that explains the data ok. smart layout would not in good structure the data in any respect. regardless of if it did clarify reality, it is a much more beneficial complicated concept. the position did the clothier come from? How did he mess with the genomes of organisms? you do not have any understanding of common sense or technology.

Answer 9

Not to mention the fact that when other theories are used to explain evolution they conveniently exclude where what is evolving came from. "Obviously evolution is real." Ok, well where did the things that are evolving come from? "Well they came from the big bang of course." Well where did the stuff that banged come from? "I don't have time for this nonsense, I am a scientist."

Answer 10

The anser to your question is, vestigial DNA.