The notion of Ocam’s razor is that,
“All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.” In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam’s razor is usually understood. (1)
So, let’s start off with abiogenesis in this post. We’ll do a little history lesson.
Aristotle explicitly taught this form of abiogenesis, and laid it down as an observed fact that some animals spring from putrid matter, that plant lice arise from the dew which falls on plants, that fleas are developed from putrid matter, that mice come from dirty hay, and so forth. (2)
That’s a pretty simple explanation with very few assumptions is it not? But completely absurd, ridiculous, and false. All along the way, Darwinists have presented arguments based on simple mechanisms. I say simple in that they have always assumed things were more simple and more easy to occur than has subsequently been found. I’m not saying Ocam’s Razor has no utility, but when it comes to the design of life, it has consistently sliced the wrong way.
(2). http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Aristotle/Abiogenesis.html
Tags: abiogenesis, evolution, Intelligent Design, Ocam's Razor, science
November 3rd, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Wouldn’t it be better to examine what’s wrong with existing models of abiogenesis, rather than what’s wrong with Aristotle’s?
November 3rd, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Same thing Carl–only in the degree of magnitude perhaps. I have no reason to believe that the pattern will not continue as it has–that things are much more complex than previously assumed with biology.
November 3rd, 2008 at 7:20 pm
But until you’ve examined the current models of abiogenesis, how will you know what’s wrong with them?
November 3rd, 2008 at 8:09 pm
I have examined them. But perhaps you would like to enlighten me on how these will not suffer the same flaws of every other past notion of abiogenesis: they can’t work and they are naive.
November 3rd, 2008 at 8:35 pm
I’m not so dogmatic as to assert that they cannot work; perhaps some of them can, and perhaps not. But I do think that we’ll learn something about the difficulties of the abiogenesis problem from the failure of current models, if the current models do fail. Is that naivete on my part?
November 3rd, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Perhaps. What have you learned from previous models?
I will be so dogmatic as to say they cannot work. Which model are you referring to: volcanoes, diamonds, comets, hydrothermal vents, panspermia, extra-solar panspermia, or what?