Biological Evidence Against Intelligent Design

The people that raise the design argument, when you explore what they are saying - seem to be making a top-down argument rather than a bottom up one and that his point is addressing this.He specifically says that all the characteristics the designer these people are talking about are all the same kinds of characteristics that we started out trying to explain! Intelligence, sentience, forethought, some kind of implementation capability etc. I agree that if you rely on the terms 'simple' and 'complex' to communicate something then you have to at some point explain what you mean by the terms. I suspect that it may end up being circular: A complex thing being defined as being many simple things interacting with one another.And I appreciate that there are potentially ...ahem...complex issues to worry about there...if we're going to do Analytical Philosohpy the subject could keep us occupied for several thousand words and we'd still have only got as far as explaining what we mean by 'define'. Incidentally - I'm perfectly happy to do this subjectively and then go a bit...I dunno, erm heterophenomenological all over it, to wit:The evidence seems to be that things that humans are inclined to identify as complex are actually many interacting things that humans identify as simple, despite humans generally defining those two things as being exclusive properties.And for the purposes of this debate - I think that saves us a lot of time. If we are writing a science paper or a philosophical treatise we might want to go deeper.