Is complexity an argument against design?

Lo all..

quote:

---

So essentially you are saying that complexity is useless in the detection of design since both simple and complex systems could indicate design.

---

That depends complexity is something you try to remove when designing, so efficiency is a better measure, than simplicity, without a stated, or apparent purpose, reality can't be said to be either.
Eyes are pretty inefficient tho, if they were designed, so are ears.
Spines aren't great, and you'd need to be an idiot to think two sets of teeth was enough!!!
Complexity is often given as something that infers design in nature, but I don't think it does, or that if it does then we must infer that the designer didn't really care about us overmuch.
To decide if something is complex or not, in this context, we have to look at the purposes which we can see.
Design, particularly good design is efficient, it gets the job done, with a minimum of effort.
Designing an entire reality just to give us somewhere to live is bad design unless it's entirely neccesary.
The exact same goal could be achieved with just our solar system, according to Creationist belief, so the rest of Creation was a waste of time.
The purpose of the design is not apparent, thru the design itself, If we take another design, with humans central to it, then place someone unaware of technology nearby, how long would it take to figure out it was made? Say a car. Or even better, the shuttle.
How long to figure out that this was made to contain people?
While a truly alien technology might be hard to see purpose in, God is not considered to be Alien to us in this way, (created in His image), and we are supposed to be central to the design.
The brief amount of time for which man has existed, suggests again, that if Creation were intended for us, then it was badly made.
There is no benefit in the universe existing, which can affect anything "outside" of it. The universe is a closed thermal system, nothing goes in nothing goes out. Nothing.
All of nature's systems are what is called "self-organising" systems, this means, that their own internal conditions allow them to exist, as long as nothing interfere's with these conditions too much, the system continues, and increases in complexity. Evolution is one such system, but only one.
Evolution can be challenged as a theory (although I don't believe succesfully), but the existence of such systems is a fact which cannot be disputed.
Creation as described in Genesis, is a unique, one time event which cannot be observed.
This means Evolution is far more likely.

quote:

---

is simply your own assumption. Do you have any actual evidence to support the contention?

---

This was addressed to someone who was stating the opposite view to mine, but it's still a fair question, so evidence for complex undesigned self-organised systems.....http://psoup.math.wisc.edu/archive/sosfaq.html
This is pretty well referenced, but you could also check out the works of Dr. Edward DeBono, who uses the theory for psychological research, which also supports the idea of mind as an emergent property of matter, some cool stuff.

Hi, thanks, will do.
The name's actually from world of warcraft, my avatar has no chin, and the name just stuck
sorry bout the off topic.