How does Complexity demonstrate Design

I Can't get this Logic "Because it is Complex it must have Designed"
They're essentially saying, "I don't know, so a god Must Have Done It." It to me is almost like saying "I don't know how Pictures and sound get on the television - so a god must have done it."The main Idea of this logic is that the universe is so complex it must have been designed, but wouldn’t the designer of the universe be inherently more complex than the universe itself? If this is true , who designed the designer, and so on?why do these people not see this problem? They can think deep enough to conclude it must be designed... but they can't think any deeper then that? I would like some Comments from Creationists. I would like to understand what you think in regards to this.why does Complex = Design ?This message has been edited by DC85, 06-09-2004 07:53 PM

---

My site The Atheist BibleMy New Debate Fourms!

I'm not sure what the specific point here is. Could this go in the existing topics? If not what is different about it?I think you need to make it clearer if you intend to stick to a topic. Is your point to discuss the source of the designer as the title suggests?I think it'll be a short one if we hold it to that.

I added to it... is that ok?

Now your main thrust doesn't seem to match the topic title.We are talking about complexity not the designer's designer.

the main point was complexity... I picked the title as an eye catcher... I figured it was related... Can you rename?This message has been edited by DC85, 06-09-2004 08:06 PM

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Considering I agree with you, this might be a pointless response, but I'd take it one step further. To my mind, complexity negates a creator. If you want to design something, the simpler the better. There are much less things to go wrong or need fixing if the design is simple. That's sort of the premise behind KISS (keep it simple stupid). However, complexity would be a necessity if evolution is true. Adding things on to already existing things makes it more and more complex, though not necessarily the best "design" one could make to overcome whatever obstacles are being faced.

---

"Of course...we all create god in our own image" - Willard Decker, Star Trek: The Motion Picture

this is a brilliant assertion.i'll be sure to add it my new theory -- stupid design.anyhow. allow me to quote-mine behe for a second here:

quote:

---

I do not say that just because they can't be produced natural selection, they're uh, products of intelligent design

---

http://www.ncseweb.org/..._dr_michael_behe_dr_10_31_2002.asp

Stupid design does make a little more sense looking at the results, but it leads to many problems if you take it farther back. Unless of course you aren't trying to prove a god, in which case go right ahead with the idea.-edit stupid me, forgot to check show sig...oh wellThis message has been edited by Perdition, 06-09-2004 11:49 PM

---

"Of course...we all create god in our own image" - Willard Decker, Star Trek: The Motion Picturehttp://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

well, i'm really just being a smart ass.

I thought so, but wasn't totally sure. I have used Stupid Design to some degree when BSing with some of my friends though.

---

"Of course...we all create god in our own image" - Willard Decker, Star Trek: The Motion Picturehttp://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Complex just means (whatever) "we dont understand" but you asked WHY this observed did it infer, imply or induct Design"" yes?Well I guess the first thing to be sure of is that this is NOT a univocal word for the science of complexity physics though I dont doubt that some creationists might ONLY be using it in that sense. Any way using only that use of the word would make the explanation I give below not sufficient even if necessary to the extant extent I consider.One answer might be that they are able to conclude the sublime in that pattern and then THINK to a beauty that it is not and from there guess it IS THUS designed but I would have thought there is not this much sophistication but rather from a moral position instead ANY practical reason might grant that no matter how nature is traced the invention of it (in any human terms) could apirori have been and if it was then it will at least by will be by design should the thinker have a head on their shoulders. If you are asking why evos might not agreee with this thought process then I would need to go a different route with the wordings but the conclusion at least philosophical can have the same logic in the crass vulgar sense.I hope that helps. Best, brad.

I think I may have almost understood that last one.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Then UNDERSTAND THIS-I TOLD SIMON LEVIN (now of Princeton then @CU)to SEE the COMPLEX as SIMPLE. HE could NOT! Look it might not be possible that a thermostat is beautiful. I for one dont think so. I told him that shit holes or words to the same effect are not part of his "spatial" understanding but still he is cited and quoted as if this has ANY bearing on the nature of the designed nature by GOD.It is GOOD that you are understanding. It means what I have always meant, that there is not much of difference between the rejection of some kinds of science AND creationism from the study by the elite. The issue is only that unlike schools we can ACTUALLY DISCUSS both or any sides here in cyberpoof space but the poop hits the fan if one had this questioned or at best Simon simply said I got TOO philosophical for his applied math taste- WELL...Is that any reason to have be s-canned because I go to Church on Sunday and HAD NOT HAD Gladyshev's IDeas to use at the time. OF COURSE NOT. And it also pretty much means that the PSYCHOLOGICAL advice was mistaken but if you understand then THAT is what we are finally getting flushed thanks to I-net. Best and God Luck.

It is not just "complex" that equals design. It is when complexity meets specification that we infer design. And if you don't get it why don't you try reading abouty the subject. Start with Dembski, Behe and Ratszch.