Is my rock designed?

None of this really helps our ability to consistently differentiate between that which is designed and that which is not.How can we objectively tell design from non-design? That is the question being asked here.If complexity is the key then how do we objectively measure complexity? What units could complexity even be measured in?Unless there is a way to objectively measure complexity any argument for design on the basis of complexity will be purely subjective."I think this rock is so complex as to indicate design"
"Well I think the same rock is simple enough to have arisen via natural processes"Likewise the same conversation could be had about life. But with no objective benchmark with which to evaluate complexity how can we even possibly begin to decide the point at which an object becomes too complex to have arisen naturally? It just becomes a contest of words.Is a man made pinhole camera really more complex than a snowflake? Subjectively I would say not.If the argument for design rests almost entirely on the concept of complexity then thoe who advocate it would be best served by trying to determine a means of measuring physical complexity and then going onto show that a certain level of complexity is unobtainable by natural processes alone.

So if the "processes" are the key then in what way are babies designed, any more or less, than rocks are?You have said that rocks do not display design characeteristics.
Do you think that human babies display characeristics that suggest the need for design?Your position seems very contradictory indeed.