Is complexity an argument against design?

That is because most of the pro-science folks on this board are using the same kind of definition as scientists themselves use, a not not unreasonable position in my view.How would you like it if I insisted that Christianity be defined solely by non-Christians? Shouldn't scientists and Christians (not mutually exclusive categories by the way) be allowed to define their own pursuits in their own way, rather than allowing what they do to be defined by their critics?When people ask for scientific evidence for ID it is because ID proponents claim that ID is science. Thus it seems reasonable to demand evidence to back up this claim.Furthermore, if ID is science, of a kind no different to mainstream science, it clearly follows that ID must carry out its research and provide its evidence under the same principles and definitions of science as everyone else. To suggest that ID need only meet your favoured definition of science (which is most definitely not the one accepted by mainstream scientists) is to admit that ID does not operate in the same way as mainstream science and therefore is not mainstream science, or indeed, science at all.You are undermining your own argument. You just don't get it do you? If I find myself standing before the Almighty in some sort of afterlife, then I certainly won't be asking for evidence. That is because I will have the evidence right there in front of my eyes!. If I actually find myself in the afterlife I will have all the evidence I need to confirm its reality, through simple empirical observation of my new surroundings.I do not believe that there is a tiger in my linen cupboard, but if I opened it up and a bloody great tiger jumped out and started chewing on my arm, I wouldn't be asking for evidence that the tiger was real; I would have ample evidence. The same is true in your example.One last point. You don't do the ID movement any favours by invoking the Almighty. ID is supposed to be science. By constantly mentioning God and quoting the Bible, you are giving the game away somewhat.

---

Mutate and Survive

And this piffle is related to complexity and design how exactly? Besides, telling other people what they think, as though you know better than they do, is pretty arrogant don't you think? No matter how many times you repeat this wrong-headed nonsense, you will not make it one iota less wrong. You seem to be unwilling or unable (or both) to accept that natural history is a historical science. That doesn't invalidate it any more than it does palaeontology, much of geology, archaeology, forensics, etc. Evolution on the other hand can be observed taking place in the lab, in just the same way that you claim is impossible. This has been explained to you, but you are apparently impervious to learning, which is a genuine shame. The only person who accepts your definition of "true science" is you. Good luck with it. You'll need it if this is the best you can do. What, because you came out with the above non-sequitur? The theory of evolution is, believe it or not, a theory, even if you fail to understand what that word is being used to mean.

---

Mutate and Survive