Re: Occam's Razor Cuts Deeply
Jason Bode (jason_bode@hotmail.com)
Sun, 20 Jun 1999 23:18:09 PDT>>If "design" can't be tested, neither
>>can the concept that the universe is an accident.
>CC
>Since an "accidental" universe is an absolute minimalist theory, the >ID
>design theorist has the main burden of proof. UNTIL such proof, >the
>rational presumption is with accidentalness. Since design >theory, like
>non-design theory, accepts the physical universe as >existing and
>functioning according to laws of physics, the core >difference between them
>is that design theory posits something that >goes (vastly) beyond ordinary
>naturalistic theory. THAT portion of >such theory is where the burden of
>proof arises. Occam's Razor >sometimes cuts deeply. That can't be helped in
>this case except by >getting real, design-unique evidence.
What if I think the absolute minimalist and most basic stance is ID rather
than accidental? Prove what you say is minimalist before throwing around
burdens of proof anywhere but towards yourself. As I have mentioned before,
what is the simplest explanation has to be first agreed on before applying
Occam's Razor.
Jason
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com