[QUOTE]Originally posted by Peter:
[B]
"Why does complexity imply design ?"
Do you have a serious objection to the SETI program? The SETI program is designed to locate signals that have specified complexity. Even if we didn't know the nature of the sender, we could imply that the signal was created.
"Does simplicity imply that an object was NOT designed ?"
Not neccesarily. It merely implies that it is likely that natural processes COULD of created it. Likewize, complexity merely implies that it is likely that natural processes DID NOT create it.
"Effectively what you are saying is 'I can't beleive that that
wasn't designed!'"
So? Effectively, what many evolutionists are saying is, "I can't believe that that was designed." What's the difference? (In fact, many evolutionists don't even consider the ID argument. Instead they make bogus claims about ID being "God of the Gaps" or it being "the end of scientific inquiry.")
"I think some more objective design criteria would be useful.
Not sure there are any though."
I realize that you may not like ID very much, but I don't see your point. No where in my posts have I claimed something ridiculous like "Life is so complex, it must of been designed! You evolutionists are retards!" I simply claimed that complexity tends to point to a designer (in all known cases that I'm aware of, it has). Maybe life is different, but given our knowledge, I believe the ID argument is worth heavy consideration.