Russell Griggs talks about the application of 'Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatum’ to the creation/evolution debate:<quoted text>
Conforms to the principle of parsimony.(creationism doesn't)
"Is Occam’s Razor valid when it comes to discussing the supernatural? Well, atheists seem to think so. The Skeptic’s Dictionary says:‘atheists often apply Occam’s razor in arguing against the existence of God on the grounds that God is an unnecessary hypothesis.’5
And in his bestseller, A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking, discussing the uncertainty principle, writes:
Stephen Hawking's book
‘We could still imagine that there is a set of laws that determines events completely for some supernatural being, who could observe the present state of the universe without disturbing it. However, such models of the universe are not of much use to us ordinary mortals. It seems better to employ the principle of economy known as Occam’s razor and cut out all the features of the theory that cannot be observed.’6
However, by invoking Occam’s Razor, sceptics make a rod for their own backs for, as we shall see, once the validity of Occam’s Razor is admitted and this criterion is applied to aspects of the creation/evolution debate, the results are clearly on the side of creation and against evolution.
He goes on to explain why
That is all evolutionary 'science' has done<quoted text>
Is self correcting (creationism isn't)
Is correct itself
There is little or no consensus in the field of evolutionary 'science' at any given time
Propaganda, bluster and carrying on's
When the starting and central premise is erroneous, continual corrections are the name of the game
But guess what?
Evidence and 'facts' change constantly but the fixed belief that evolution is true NEVER changes
Mary Schweitzer is a case in point
Seeing the 'unbelievable' soft tissues including collagenous tissues and red blood cells... in dino bones
But the dogmatic central paradigm that these were 65 million years old and therefore COULD NOT be present
She tested her findings 17 times to make sure
I thought science was unbiased?
No starting biases??
Not true when 'evolution' is in town
Its the ONLY game in town
I don't know what field of science you are most familiar with, but the forensics type of 'science' used in evolution eg paleontology, phylogenetics, biological anthropology...is forever in a state of self correction...
This is precisely what Dr Lines talks and writes about
This one is great for Chimney...if he --or she-- is still around