Is complexity an argument against design?

But "context" is very subjective, isn't it? One man's noise is another man's music. One sees organization where another sees randomness.With a rock, there are an finite number of "steps" that gave it its present shape, even if we can't infer all of those steps from its present shape. Those steps constitute the "information" about the rock's shape. The more steps, the more information.If those steps produced Mount Everest or Michaelangelo's David, what's the difference?-------------Welcome to EvC. Edited by Ringo, : Shpelling.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

It occurs to me that we infer "design" in David because it is a copy of something found in nature. In that example, we are inferring imitation, not true design.David and Everest are made of similar materials using similar methods. The only distinction between the two is that the "designed" one is a fake and the "undesigned" one is an original. Not much of a testimony to the "designer", anyway.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC