Sonnikke writes:
That's a non-sequitur if I've seen one. What kind of logic is this? Because something designed can be simple thus complexity cannot be related to design?
No, I believe you've misunderstood what Peter was saying. To exaggerate a little to help make the point, the most complex designs are often Rube Goldberg tributes to ineptitude. Something designed really well is elegant in its simplicity and an icon of efficiency.
This means that you're looking at things backward. You're arguing that the more complex something is the more likely it is to have been designed when actually the opposite is true. It takes much intellectual effort to arrive at a clean and efficient design. If you just consider the genomes of organisms, many seem Rube Goldbergian in their needless complexities with long stretches of junk, redundancies, multilayered enabling and de-enabling of genes, etc. Such tortured and needlessly complex systems seem much more likely the result of random events than of conscious design.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2