Occam’s razor, Biblical Creation, and Macroevolution

What has become known as Occam’s razor, “the simplest answer is usually correct”, stems from the fact that when given competing explanations for an event, the one that makes the least number of assumptions is usually correct. It is both a philosophical approach as well as scientific. The number of preeminent scientists that have held to this sort of view are too numerous to list here.

What happens when we apply Occam’s Razor to Biblical Creation and Macroevolution?

Let’s take on Biblical Creation first. How many assumptions are made? One – in the beginning God created  . . . everything.

Now let’s look at Macroevolution. How many assumptions are made? That’s a hard one to add up. Why? Because macroevolution says that in the beginning . . . well actually it doesn’t say. It assumes other theories are correct – like the Big Bang Theory. The problem with that is that even the Big Bang Theory is based on assumptions. It says that in the beginning . . . well actually it doesn’t say. It assumes matter already existed and it says that it came from . . . well it actually it doesn’t say. You can see we are already drifting far afield just to give macroevolution a plausible base. We haven’t even reached the assumptions needed for the concept that life formed from the non-living elements of the periodic table. We haven’t addressed the assumptions made concerning how old the Earth is. We haven’t addressed the assumptions made in the face of the lack of credible fossil evidence for a transitory fossil. We haven’t addressed the assumptions made in the presence of currently living animals that defy macroevolution. We haven’t addressed the assumptions made to account for the problems of irreducible complexity. The list could continue ad nauseam.

So we are left with two competing concepts. One considered “unscientific” that makes only one assumption – Biblical Creation; and, one “theory” that has too many assumptions to address outside a paper for academia – which itself makes the assumption the theory is correct and protects it at all costs.

Of course, I am making the assumption that this will be read with an open mind . . . . . .