The issue with complexity is, what are you referencing complexity off of? Everything can be considered complex from life itself down to subatomic particles and superstrings (as I am sure Cavediver can attest to). So if everything is complex, than nothing is since there is not something you can say is not complex.
Can you say a quark in nonliving matter are less complex than quarks in living matter? Of course not. When you boil things down to their ultimate fundamental structure we are the same. It is the arrangement that differs as we macroscopically scale up. Does this differing arrangement make things more or less complex? Not really. Are you saying that 2x10
27 atoms in a living cell are more
"complex" than 2x10
27 in an ice crystal the same size?
I guess the real question than is, what is complexity?
In my opinion, the only thing we can say is that some things "appear" to be more complex than others in an anthropomorphoc way. Like the term "beauty", "complexity" is subjective rather than objective and to me is an unscientific term you do not see often in the scientific community which is precisely why the ID and creationists try to capitolize on it.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : Fix html code
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World