This is an article I wrote for the newspaper at Santa Rosa Junior College.

Occam’s Razor
By Nathan Charles

We don’t know where life began and we don’t know why. What do fundamentalist Christians have to say about this? “It must have been God.” Schools all across the Country are debating whether or not to put intelligent design on the curriculum. Most notable is Dover Area High School in Dover, Pa., who have now mandated the teaching of intelligent design in biology classes.

Any professor of philosophy is familiar with a little thing called, “Occam’s Razor.” It’s the aphorism that states, “Entities are not to be multiplied without necessity.” For those of you not familiar with this it means that we should not make things up to fill the empty spaces. In other words, save Intelligent Design for philosophy, not science.

Those opposed to evolution say that Darwin’s theory of natural selection cannot fully explain the origin of life. What these people fail to realize is that this theory does not try to explain how things began, but how they became. And it is based on observable facts. In my opinion, the two subjects of intelligent design and evolution should not even be mentioned in the same sentence. One is a philosophical fancy of how things began, while the other is a scientifically observable theory about how things came to be as they are.

Never mind that this theory of intelligent design is simply a literal interpretation of the Bible put under the guise of “scientific” language. Even under the guise of a mere philosophical discussion it cannot be proven. One can just as easily say that Satan creating everything.

Science is a collection of facts through direct observation and experiment. And until someone can directly prove the existence of an intelligent designer, there is no place for this theory in a science class.

We scientific thinkers still have quite a few people on our side: the American Astronomical Society, National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Science Teachers Association, the American Geophysical Union, the American Chemical Society, and the American Association of Physics Teachers. All these organizations are fighting tooth and nail to keep science class just that: science class.

But let’s not leave yet without giving fundamentalist Christians the benefit of the doubt. Proponents range from people like retired professor Phillip Johnson to President George Bush. The argument runs like this: natural selection does not explain how life began. It does not explain mutations, complexities, etc. There is scant physical evidence for the large-scale mutations needed to make the long journey from primitive prokaryote to modern man. While all of this may be true, it still gives us no reason to put intelligent design into science class. The glaringly simple fact always remains: it cannot be proven. What some science teachers want to do on their own time is entirely up to them. But to put intelligent design down on the curriculum simply because it sounds good is educational disaster. We might as well go back to the Dark Ages.

And so I believe that most Christians could benefit from contemplation of Occam’s Razor. It was, after all, based on the philosophy of a Christian. And never mind that he was branded a heretic, not the least of which for being the first Christian thinker to advocate the separation of Church and State. Most logical thinkers are branded heretics in some form or another, even to this very day.

oh, we don't? well, just don't go about telling evolutionists that....because, y'know, single-celled organisms didn't originate from the depths of the ocean near volcanic vents or nuttin'......

but, i think the term "life" should be replaced with "existence".....since, although life consists of both the metaphysical and the physical, you can have both realms without life (for instance, a unicorn [metaphysical]; a rock [physical]) but not existence...

yes it can....Descartes' cogito ergo sum was used primarily to prove the existence of God....i think therefore i am = i think/concieve of God, therefore God exists.....now, the counterarguments against this reasoning are a little more valid than Descartes', but nonetheless, his logic can still be applied today...

and following an absurdist line of thought, it does work....for, although a unicorn does not exist physically, metaphysically such an entity does, for i (as well as many others) can concieve of such a creature....therefore, such a creature exists (just not physically; nevertheless, it still exists).....ERGO, i (and many others) can concieve of a Christian diety known as God, therefore He exists.......

that's a dangerous assertion to make....

ontological arguments, teleological arguments, cosmological arguments (not to mention arguments i mentioned earlier) are all acceptable philosophical and theological theories......there are arguments both for and against said theories (and although i sit on the side against said theories, they are nonetheless justifiable arguments...)



all in all, in the end, to sum up, your argument was mediocre at best.....having definate potential though, but a little under-educated and biased if i would say so myself (me having a philosophy degree....big-whoop!)

um, for one thing you have an evident distaste (or so it would seem) against Christianity (or any mode of religion worshipping such a diety) and although i myself hate such a religion, that does not mean it isn't without merit.....but that's beside the point....the real issue i have with this is that you took the term "intelligent design" and immediately applied "God" to it.....as far as i know, from what courses i did take on the subject, "intelligent design" doesn't necessarily dictate God....nor does it dictate religion......it says nothing about the creature being moral.....although, in the end, intelligent design is obviously some form of religious propaganda....

HOWEVER, despite the theories against intelligent design, there are still many justifiable theories stating the existence of a "necessary being".....but said being DOESN'T (note: doesn't, not isn't, but doesn't) have to be sentient (self-aware/intelligent/moral) in anyway shape or form, but may indeed exist all the same......unless, of course, you want to take the stance that circular time (infinity) exists.....

but yeah, nice effort, nice argument, but it's more of a personal qualm/rant than a philosophical argument.....but keep it at it.....

B-

I guess I have to apologize for putting this article under the category of philosophy. That must have been very misleading. I can understand your confusion.
You are missing the main point of my article. I am arguing against putting intelligent design in science class. Scientific theories require physical evidence in order to be proven. It's really as simple as that. Evolution is the best theory we have so far in this regard. If you can offer me something better I'm all ears (nothing a priori please, unless it's strictly a discussion on philosophy or theology).
Oh, one more thing. In regard to philosophy (now that we're on the subject) I am going to have to disagree with Descartes in regard to God (as do most philosophers these days). While his cogito ergo sum by itself is "proved with a flourish of trumpets" that in no way means that because I think of God he exists. He may exist in my imagination, but until I see him with my own two eyes I am going to have to refrain from believing in him outside the mental realm. I make a point not to believe something just because it sounds good. But that is my preference.
Thank you for your comments.

P.S. Anytime you want to have a philosophical debate I'm game
Bring it on.

oh wow....lol....ooooookay

okay, sorry, i don't mean to laugh, as it seems to belittle you....but, that just made me laugh....

um, well, we'll just start with this.....you are aware of the "metaphysical" right?

and just for the record, Descartes' "cogito ergo sum" was used to prove God's existence, and although you are correct, the logic doesn't have much sway in philosophy these days (for, Descartes truly provided this in his essay so as to appease the tyranical church at the time and escape bein' labeled a heritic and burned alive); the idea has been adopted and molded into virtually every style of philosophy today....being that Descartes is the father of "modern philosophy" and all......

but, like i asked earlier, the metaphysical? you aware of it yes?

yeah, there have been several rebuttles to Descartes theories. by the way, you got his argument wrong

1) god is perfect
2) existance is part of perfection
C) God must exist

The "i think therefore i am" speech was in the same set of meditations but not directly alligned. This can be refuted quite a few ways, the most glaringly obvious being that this pattern of argument can follow just as easily into disproving god.


and my biggest beef with creationism is the fact that they try to argue that the world is only 3000 years old. Fucking rediculous. If you look into astronomy, geology, hell even oceanography it becomes abundantly clear why the 3000 year thing is a bunch of crock. and by the way creationists: "it's just a theory"? yeah if you understood the definition of a scientific theory you would shut the fuck up.

hmm, my god! you tellin' me i was wrong? then what the hell was i thinking about....

or wait, no.....no, it was used....yeah, the ontological argument (or was it teleological....i always get them confused)

yeah, no.....yeah, i'm right...."cogito ergo sum" was used....."i think, therefore i exist".......thereby, thinking is that which proves existence; perception bein' involved, a-priori, sentience, yaddah, yaddah, yaddah, yaddah.....

the mind (which does the thinking) is a metaphysical entity (if, you agree with the justifications that the metaphysical does indeed exist......and, Descartes dualism: mind seperate from body, yaddah, yaddah, yaddah.....i'm a substantial-dualist of a sort myself, or rather, i too agree that the mind is metaphysical in nature....but that's a topic for another day)

anywho, the theory went:

"i think, therefore i exist"

thinking equates existence.....

and in order to think, one needs a sense of perception......now, in terms of existentialism, i myself exist 99.999999999%, while you mah-dear, exist 99.9999998%.........i'm not you, i only percieve you, but i percieve you exist via my own personal perception of my existence....

anywho, metaphysical entities also exist.....not physically, but they exist

you got unicorns, dreaming, God, the mind....

thus: Descartes indepth essay on the metaphysical nature of ourselves was used (if not by him, by philosophers that succeeded him) to prove the metaphysical does exist, from Descartes' theories in dualism, and was used as an argument to prove God exists as well....

absurdist would still argue God does indeed exist, because i can think of him....and also, i think Phenomenalism would say the same thing.......


and, i'm going to have to check up on which argument it was (teleological or ontological) that gave this argument......the counter-argument, i remember, was really fuckin' out there, but highly interesting and justified to a T, and if memory serves me correct, it was Hume's theory.....and if i remember correctly, it was deep in symantics.....

but don't let me say i know what i'm talking about, let me read up on it

yes, i know one follows from another, and i shouldn't have said "you got it wrong." It's late/early, give me a break. What i meant was you didn't explain it very well, not everyone is as familiar with Descartes as you apparently are

(myself included, I honestly only knew what you were talking about because we just went over it in modern philosophy. if there are holes in my logic it's probably because my attendance was pretty spotty during that period)

but yes, moving on.

yeah way fucking out there arguments you can keep to yourself right now. i already have enough theories and random shit in storage right now. get me at the end of the semester.

hahahaha......right-right, but please make a thread, share your views.....

and might i say, you strike me as odd, almost hauntingly similar....you're in college studying english and philosophy, what's your major(s)?

English Major, Philosophy Minor.

rockin'.....i was English Major: creative writing, Philosophy Major......they go hand in hand quite nicely don't they? i had several professors in both subjects, that had a minor in the other subject......weird

they do go quite nicely together, and my philosophy professors like the fact that my papers are actually well structured unlike much of the other philosophy students.

as for concentration i started off creative writing, but they added something to the department so you could do an open english major. I chose it because it let me opt to graduate early (this december). The sad part is, if i stayed on one more semester and took 12 more hours i could have my double major.

oh shit, there i go derailing a thread again.

i got screwed on my double major....i don't want to go into it, but it involved a lengthy argument (with profanity) with the liberal-art director.....i instead ended up with a dual major......ho-hum

kind of funny you mentioned writing structure though.....my english professors hated the fact that i wrote essays in a philosophical style......

In general metaphysics is the study of the ultimate nature of being. Its primary branches of thought are ontology and cosmology.
Descartes is the father of modern philosophy because after his cogito ergo sum a great majority of philosophers took a subjectivist view of philosophy.
His proof of the existence of God can be summed up thusly: "From the certainty of the existence of a thinking being, Descartes passed to the existence of God, for which he offered one proof based on St. Anselm's ontological proof and another based on the first cause that must have produced the idea of God in the thinker. Having thus arrived at the existence of God, he reaches the reality of the physical world through God, who would not deceive the thinking mind by perceptions that are illusions. Therefore, the external world, which we perceive, must exist. He thus falls back on the acceptance of what we perceive clearly and distinctly as being true, and he studies the material world to perceive connections. He views the physical world as mechanistic and entirely divorced from the mind, the only connection between the two being by intervention of God."
I'm sure you are familiar with all of this. But I have to reiterate that because something is "proved" a priori that in no way means that it has been proved empirically. But I don't have to tell you that.
Also, don't feel bad for laughing. Whatever makes you feel good, sir.

that's it, that's the one...thank you Nathan, saved me oodles of time.....

*note: Hume's counter-argument was against the teleological argument for God....which i can explain if anyone desires.....

empiricists argue against a priori arguments, as do rationalists....even Hume argue that a priori arguments can only be achieved through experience.....i guess i go more of the classic route of thinking (even though i despise Plato) in that there is something of greater importance (like substance, equality, cause, etc.).....and then you have Kant who proposed that perhaps some a priori concepts are presupposed by the very possibility of experience....

I understand your points, and I'm going to have to agree with you about Plato. I'm not sure about your reasons for not liking him, but in my opinion utopias are for suckers. Also, when it comes down to it he just seems like a self-righteous sophist. Only he never had to admit it to himself, because he made a point of using Socrates as the main character in his books. Not that I don't have some admiration for the skill of manipulators, but... well you get what I'm driving at.