Is complexity an argument against design?

quote:

---

OTO the cube has all of the complexities that the randomly shaped rocks have plus the shape indicative of intelligent design which obviously formed it's intelligently designated shape.

---

What about the previous example of the salt cube? It has a shape indicative of design, but was in fact formed via natural processes. Also

quote:

---

The rock was shaped randomly without intelligent design via natural processes.

---

This is contrary to genesis 1:9 which would indicate that in fact the rock was formed via God. Which should it be than? God didn't form the rocks, they were formed via gravity? God did form the rocks but that natural processes acted upon them to bring about the shape we see today? God formed the rocks in the exact same form as what we see today and the rest of history is a lie from the devil (aka geologists)?

So you respect the laws of science but not the theroy that contains the laws? Electromagnetism has contained within it variuos laws but these are only analytical statements. The theroy of electromagnetism is not proven. Yet here we are communicating via the same principles of an unproven theroy.

quote:

---

There is a big difference between scientists learning how plants, animals, and matter functions, than in studying plants, animals, and matter to somehow theorize how they came to be without a Creator.

---

Mere reactionism, just because we can say that TOE can function without having to jam God into the gears does not mean that it is it's intent. TOE focuses on "how" not "whom". There is nothing that specifically excludes God from TOE. If God has the power to magic all of creation than it certanly has the power to work within and by use of the same physical constraints it created.