I recently commented on one of my friends' Facebook posts in regards to the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate. One of the issues I brought up was that Ham's Creationism lacked the qualities that we would usually associate with good explanations, namely what I called "precision". Which I defined as:

Good explanations exclude more possible evidence than bad explanations. Let’s say that you have two friends who collect marbles. One friend collects only black marbles while the other collects every single color marble he can get his hands on. If your plumbing problems started after both friends were over for a few hours, and a black marble was found in your pipes, it’s much more likely that your friend who only collects black marbles caused it than your friend who collects all marble colors; even though it’s known that both friends own black marbles.

I'm pretty sure I made up this definition of "precision" because upon Google-ing I can't find any definition of "precision" that matches this. More importantly, I can't really find any sort of list that enumerates the items that separate good explanations from bad explanations. The person I posted this in response to rightly pointed this out, so "good explanation" seems entirely subjective from his point of view. Any ideas on how to close the inferential gap between us using a more authoritative source than just my say so?