Does Occam’s Razor conclude that THEISTIC EVOLUTION is more complicated than ATHEISTIC EVOLUTION (theism requires an all powerful deity and the trappings with it) and hence atheism is the fact since theistic evolution has far too many unnessessary parts (ie God)
Nope. First a note on Occam’s Razor. It is harder to apply than an informal fallacy, I should think. Take for example this simple explanation of why birds fly:
-Birds fly because they have wings and no other reason.
Obviously that is wrong, but it is a lot more simple than the reality of things. So what we must look for is a reason to believe that atheistic evolution (indeed, most often a materialistic view) is lacking the same sort of truth that the bird example is, or perhaps we should fear Occam (though that isn’t certainty either). We must see, then, if it is ‘too simple’.
Obviously ‘materialistic atheist evolution’ is too simple. Any philosopher worth anything can see that materialism is a long dead and illogical philosophy. Since materialism undermines reason.
I. Laws
Let us suppose that the atheist is not a materialist. In that case they believe in some reality beyond material (perhaps pure thought). What must be understood, though, is that evolution follows certain laws from which it cannot falter. These laws include something as simple as the law of identity, to mathematical complexity and structure, down to the laws of physics and finally to the laws we say are governing evolution in biology like why the DNA mutates, why this effects the creature, why some species procreate more, etc. (don’t ask for a detailed scientific enquiry on evolution as I am no biologist
). Now it would be odd to say these laws exist in themselves and have no source, but it would be even odder to say these laws do not have any reality. God offers a way out and one possibility is that these laws are concepts of a necessary mind, and thus exist independent of humans ‘seeing’ them (which of course they do). Of course these ‘laws’ govern all nature given the proper place and time, and nature does not falter from these laws unless there is another will to make it so. In this case (if the laws derive from God), each and every second is driven by the Lord in absolute governance over any and every item in creation.
II. Existence
Beyond that possibility (which can’t just be thrown away, the higher realities and laws which make evolution so, must be accounted for), there is the question of why something even exists in the first place. If one cannot find the power of ‘being’ in a particular item itself, one must look to a cause. For example, we do not come to exist on our own accord, but rather that of our parents, and so on, and so on, etc. etc. So we must look for what allows us ‘to exist’. This can bring us to the idea of a first cause which must be
sufficient in itself to ‘purely exist’ (since pure existence cannot be lacking in any form of existence), otherwise we must keep looking until we find ‘existence itself’. Furthermore, the question of present existence is odd as well. What holds an atom in existence? Why does it not just blink out of reality? The answer obviously is not found in the atom itself, since it is lacking some degree of existence, and one cannot just explain this away in the way we talked about the bird earlier by saying ‘it just does exist because it is now’, for there is no contradiction in supposing a finite thing to not exists (i.e. their existence is not necessary)
Anyhow those are a couple of avenues you could go down in more depth. The idea that the more logical conclusion is ‘atheistic evolution’ is a conclusion that is far from true, and I think that idea (that it is superior) often comes from those who have no real experience for the higher pursuits of knowledge that are found in pure reasoning. People that think that natural science is somehow the pinnacle of human knowledge (yet they try to pull in Occam
), are often the culprits. Science is good, but one should know when they have crossed the borders of natural science into philosophy.
I hope that helps a bit, and I haven’t really presented much of an argument, but I would be glad to try and go deeper (when I have time) if you help by questioning anything you disagree with.
I also leave this question to anyone who would like to take up the atheist position:
'How does theistic evolution have uneccesary parts?'