Is complexity an argument against design?

Is complexity number then? I mean, the only difference between the rock and the cube is that the rock requires more measurements to define it, whereas the cube requires only three (one if it's a perfect cube).The thing is, the design of the object is a piss-poor argument for a Designer no matter how you look at it. It may be unlikely that it would form that way (a cube), but it is equally unlikely that it would form the way of a regular rock. We simply recognise the cube as being simpler to us because it has a significant shape, but the regular rock does not.Of course, if we are talking about likely hood of something forming in its current form, then we are saying that it had a shape it was meant to be. However, many rocks change over time (even if we DO accept a 6000-year old Earth), the rocks we see now that we are either using for or against design, don't look like they did when they would've been formed or designed. Thus, assuming design based on any of the dynamics of the object is, like I said, rediculously piss-poor thinking.Jon