The Law of parsimony prefers Intelligent Design

I would like to ask that my opponent refrain from the use of semantics as the resolution is stated as "The law of parsimony prefers intelligent design" What my opponent must do is present an alternative theory and prove that it is more parsimonious. Essentially the law of parsimony is the simplest of the two theories wins, the one which has less assumptions is to be preferred. InquireTruth did not confuse the law, what you said is exactly right, because we have one solution for the many assumptions that evolution possesses, it is favored by the law of parsimony. "After all, doesn't the law of parsimony favor a single theory that explains a wide array of phenomena? The laws of gravity explained both how objects fall and how stars move with a single model, and we celebrate it as a triumph in parsimony." The single theory, is that there was an intelligent being (God) that guided the creation of the earth, which is one theory. Whereas alternative theories have many assumptions, many of which have not been proven. "So that I can better help you understand parsimony, I would like you to it in your own terms. Explain why the law (or more accurately, the heuristic) of parsimony is useful, and tell me what it really means to "explain" a natural phenomena." I already explained the law above. It is useful, because when you have two theories like these ones, that are not completely proven, it provides an understanding that the simpler theory tends to be the correct one. I will now provide an argument of simplicity called the fine tuned argument by Robin Collins. "Suppose we went on a mission to Mars, and found a domed structure in which everything was set up just right for life to exist. The temperature, for example, was set around 70o F and the humidity was at 50%; moreover, there was an oxygen recycling system, an energy gathering system, and a whole system for the production of food. Put simply, the domed structure appeared to be a fully functioning biosphere. What conclusion would we draw from finding this structure? Would we draw the conclusion that it just happened to form by chance? Certainly not. Instead, we would unanimously conclude that it was designed by some intelligent being. Why would we draw this conclusion? Because an intelligent designer appears to be the only plausible explanation for the existence of the structure. That is, the only alternative explanation we can think of--that the structure was formed by some natural process--seems extremely unlikely. Of course, it is possible that, for example, through some volcanic eruption various metals and other compounds could have formed, and then separated out in just the right way to produce the "biosphere," but such a scenario strikes us as extraordinarily unlikely, thus making this alternative explanation unbelievable." This shows only a small amount of the complexity of our earth. It shows that of all the assumptions that science must make in order to explain these things, that our one assumption is clearly simpler, and the more plausible of the two. The next paragraph in the argument explains the razors edge chance for life to occur the way alternative theories suggest. "The universe is analogous to such a "biosphere," according to recent findings in physics. Almost everything about the basic structure of the universe--for example, the fundamental laws and parameters of physics and the initial distribution of matter and energy--is balanced on a razor's edge for life to occur. As eminent Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson notes, "There are many . . . lucky accidents in physics. Without such accidents, water could not exist as liquid, chains of carbon atoms could not form complex organic molecules, and hydrogen atoms could not form breakable bridges between molecules" (1979, p. 251)--in short, life as we know it would be impossible." Not only is the chance of the universe forming the way others suggest most implausible, but the explanations for sustainable life are even more so. When our theory is clear, simple, and more plausible. I will await the theory you believe is more plausible before i continue on to my rebuttals. http://home.messiah.edu... http://en.wikipedia.org...