quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Well, I would say it depends on the number of components needed to function. However, there is no point in which the complexity of something DEMANDS design, theoretically. However, the more specified complexity an object has, the more unlikely it is that the system is not designed intelligently. Therefore, once you reach a certain point, it becomes MORE logical to infer design and LESS logical to infer naturalistic process. And I do believe science's goal is to find the most probable way of something occuring, am I correct?
In the end though, I suppose to infer design one must use common sense.
Complexity and design are UNRELATED.
A lever is a designed tool ... it is NOT complex.
A wheel is designed ... it is NOT complex.
A frog is ... well it's a frog. It is very complex, but
clearly NOT manufactured (it metamorphoses from a tadpole
that comes from an egg that comes from ... oh ... another
frog).
We cannot detect the use of any tool in the construction of
a frog.
All of the fundamental operations which allow a frog to exist
and move around are explainable by chemistry and physics, and
these are natural phenomena.
Flip the argument and see if it makes any sense.
No definitely designed object exhibits any of the characteristics
of living things (except perhaps complexity), therefore
living things are not designed.