Is complexity an argument against design?

It's unnecessary to do so. Irreducible Complexity is refuted by the very simple fact that, as the Theory of Evolution predicts, all features of all organisms are not unique, but are rather slightly modified versions of the same feature in another organism. Those slight modifications eventually add up to significant differences, where features that share a common ancestor can have wildly different functions.It's the core of evolutionary theory.The refutation of irreducible compelxity is not so much a matter of providing examples of the gradual changes, as this cannot be done in every case and is not required. Irreducible Complexity is an attempted rebuttal of Evolution, and as such must provide an example of an irreducibly complex feature that cannot be the result of gradual changes over time. Each example Behe and his few disciples have given has failed to do so, and this is why the mainstream scientific community regards it as absolute rubbish. This is a highly inaccurate statement. The Theory of Evolution meets every requirement of a scientific theory, being a widely accepted framework explaining the diversity or life observed on Earth that is based wholly upon observation and objective evidence and has undergone rigorous testing over the past 150+ years and whose predictions have proven to be highly accurate. A theory does not become a mere hypothesis simply because a small group objects, particularly when that small group has not published a real challenge to the theory in an actual scientific journal.Behe has been soundly rejected by his scientific peers, and so he chooses to fight his battles in the public arena, publishing books ratehr than entries in scientific journals, where his audience is not typically well-educated in science and is more easily swayed by arguments that would be immediately rejected by scientists.You must understand that, from the perspective of Behe or any common Creationist, this is not about science or the scientific method. This is about the predetermined conclusion that evolution is wrong, regardless of the evidence. It's nothing but apologetics, where the conclusion is known at the beginning and evidence is sought (and twisted, and ignored, and outright fabricated) in support of that predetermined conclusion.It is, ironically enough, precisely what Creationists insist "evolutionists" are doing. But the scientific method requires evidence and peer review, and is designed from teh ground up with the specific intent of following the evidence wherever it leads, especially if it means proving accepted theories to be incorrect.Behe has abandoned the scientific method, and is not playing a game of popularity with the public at large. Creationists never wanted anything to do with teh scientific method in teh first place. Their common goal has nothing to do with following evidence where it leads and ensuring accuracy via repeated testing and peer review, but rather upholding their religious dogma at any cost.Don't pretend their nonsense is a legitimate example of science, or that they are actually presenting credible challenges to the Theory of Evolution. They have no connection with reality or science whatsoever.