The principal of parsimony has not been empirically tested as a valid means of attaining objective knowlegde. IOW, the simplest explanation is not necessarily the truest one. Creationists have been accused of stifling scientific inquiry because they attribute the general organization and behavior of matter to an intelligent designer. In fact, it is evolutionists who throw up their hands and say "We don't know, and what cannot know, what is behind this mere 'appearance' of organization."
Agreed. Although this does not pertain to the inherent incongruity I pointed out -- i.e., the claim that introduction of an unexplained and inexplicable supernatural agency is consistent with Occam's Razor.
In fact, it is evolutionists who throw up their hands and say "We don't know, and what cannot know, what is behind this mere 'appearance' of organization."
Really? You mean, for example, that crystallization is explained by the "mere appearance of organization"? That growth from seed or embryo to full biological maturity is explained by the "mere appearance of organization"? That hurricane formation is explained by the "mere appearance of organization"? I had no idea that magic was such a central concept in science.