Original sentence: Those criticizing this position argue that Chatton's anti-razor is not a principal tenet of the scientific method and that religious beliefs do not count as valid hypotheses; allowing God as an explaination is simply not open to verification nor validation.Thus, much of the literature about creation science is devoted to criticizing mainstream science, often taking issues, debates, and small discrepencies discovered by scientists working in the scientific paradigm and declaring that the problems indicate that the entire endeavor is wrong.What the creationist means by "unobserved" or "unexplained" is subject to modification according to exactly how the criticism is levvied
Edited sentence: If, however, the simpler explanation does not account for all the details, then additional principles or entities are necessary.Those criticizing this position argue that Chatton's anti-razor is not a principal tenet of the scientific method and that religious beliefs do not count as valid hypotheses; allowing God as an explaination is neither logically valid nor open to verification and validation