Looks like Yahoo gets the 3-day-old-bagel of search results.
This is a very simple theory and as far as theories go, the simpler ones are more likely correct. Of course, this theory has unthinkable implications for those who believe that the Bible is nothing more than a bunch of myths and falsehoods. People who do not wish to believe in the Bible and the God of the Bible will go to great lengths to come up with other, usually more complicated explanations for this data.
You're just wrong. It's not that the "simpler" theories are usually correct. It is "simpler" for computers and televisions to work by magic, rather than by complex circuitry. It is "simpler" that people are either "evil" or "good", but that's clearly not the case. The point of Occam's Razor and the thinking behind it, which is what you mistakenly cited in your post, is not the eliminate shades of gray, since most systems worth considering are complex.
Occam's Razor actually suggests that one should eliminate unnecessary assumptions. In the first example, having to assume that some sort of "magic" exists that just "magically" makes computers and televisions work is an unnecessary and untenable assumption.
Your little rant basically is saying: "Wouldn't it be nice if God just made it all work, and we didn't have to think - people should stop thinking!" The world clearly demonstrations that if it was explicitly created by a God, his goal was that it all work without assumptions like you are making.
Slashdot often discusses copyright as it applies to digital music, and it's interesting that the digital music industry began at a time in which there was heavy litigation over the copying of sheet music; this was in the late 1800's.
Hmm, whoops, I guess I mispoke. I don't know about the digital music industry beginning in the late 1800's. What I meant was the recorded music industry.
Either moderators were being kind and understanding (at Slashdot?!), or not only do slashdot members not RTFA, they don't RTFC either.
How can you do 'New Math' problems with an 'Old Math' mind? -- Charles Schulz