Is complexity an argument against design?

Coyote's Law:

​

I like Coyote's Law. It's true, and there is plenty of empirical evidence to prove it. Makes me want to come up with my own law: Hoot's Law:

​

As for the topical question: Is complexity an argument against design? It's a loaded question. It is loaded with subjectivity. "Complexity" has no common definition within the scientific community.Is a frog more complex than a rock? Is a human more complex than a cuttlefish? Is water more complex than air? Is a prayer more complex than a thought? As such, I think "complexity" is something of a scientific religion”you have to believe it, because the evidence for its existence is not always objective.”HM

---

If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

The information scientists like to make a fuss over it. For example, using principles of information theory some info scientists differentiate "complexity" from "ascendency," "redundancy" and "average mutual information". But sometimes they will take it all the way into metaphysics, which always makes me feel uncomfortable. (Information, of course, is so non-physical that it tends to invite spirits in through the bathroom window.)In information theory it is fair to ask if New York City's telecommunication infrastructure is measurably more complex than that of Hicksville, OH. And those theorists also like to ask which one has a greater signal-to-noise ratio. It goes from there. And I've spent (wasted) a lot of time trying to fit information theory and its version of "complexity" into biological structure, organization, and evolution.”HM