Is complexity an argument against design?

Really? Tectonic plate theory, for example? Cosmology, perhaps?On another thread, I asked you if we could study the formation of the Hawaiian Islands. We see volcanic action continuing to add territory to one of them, we see the extinct volcanoes on the others, and we can easily figure that the chain was formed by eruptions from the sea floor over millions of years. Observations of the present have told us about the past, and that's how historical science (and history via archaeology) is done.This is obvious to all intelligent people.Biological evolution is something we can observe happening in real time, like the continued formation of volcanic islands, and we have our equivalent of the extinct volcanoes in the fossil record. In addition, just as we can study the detailed geography of Hawaii as it is now in order to reveal its past, we can study modern organisms, right down to the molecular level, to reveal their relationships and their history.It's all very simple to understand, and children can understand what I'm saying above when it's explained in a science class.But sometimes desires and delusions interfere with human understanding of the obvious, don't they Johnboy?On the topic, it's true that there is a lot of unnecessary complexity in nature's designs, and this argues against the direct involvement of intelligence.Edited by bluegenes, : grammar

Ah, good. So the earth was not created, then. Obviously?Below we can obviously distinguish the natural rock cliff above from man's effort to shore it up with a sea wall. And despite the ravages of time, this ruined cottage chimney was clearly the work of our intelligent forebears Or is it always so sure?

It's important to remember that basing I.D. arguments on what science hasn't yet explained at any particular time can never be anything more than an intelligent designer/god of the gaps argument.No-one knew what the sun really was in the nineteenth century, so it was common for even scientists to attribute its apparent magic to God, but with twentieth century advances, God's help was no longer required in that area.Also it's not true that science at this point in time cannot explain some apparently "irreducibly complex" features in biology by gradual changes. Some have been well explained, and other "gaps" that people like Behe hold such high hopes for are fast closing. Like this one for example.Here's a biologist having fun with the general idea. Edited by bluegenes, : technical correction!