Zitat:
|
The one that best fits the criteria of a good explanation that I layed out at the start of the post. Isn't that obvious?
|
I didn't want to assume anything and I would consider the 4 tools you list as somewhat subjective. Let's examine them:
1) Firstly we should consider which explanation speculates the least about things
beyond the face value of the evidence and makes the fewest claims about the
existence of entities that are not in the evidence
Occams Razors fit this description very nicely. "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity."
2) We should also consider how well the explanation coheres with other facts and
explanations that are uncontroversially believed to be true.
The issue with this is the definition of "controversy" and it's here, IMO, that a huge breakdown in the Evolution vs. Creationism argument breaks down. How will one get both camps to agree on all "factual" points? Indeed, how does one even arrive at a set of proveable facts given the degree of "unproveability" that exists in both arguments?
3)A good explanation should allow the creation of testable hypothesis that can be
confirmed or disconfirmed. It should be possible to imagine some hypothetical, yet
somewhat credible, evidence that would disprove the explanation.
How does one test for God? Or for that matter, how does one create a living cell from it's basic atomic elements. So far, both have proven to be impossible.
4)Finally the explanation we chose should be comprehensive in leaving as few loose
ends as possible, generating fewer additional questions and leaving the least
unexplained.
In a purely physical sense this may prove conclusive. Unfortunately, in dealing with quantities or qualities that cannot be 'explicitly defined' such as the "fine tuning" aspects of the Universe, the absolute existence of God, etc. the explanation cannot be totally conclusive.
Because sometimes intuition can play an important role in discerning truth despite the absolute "logical" results of scientific testing.