I'd also like to add that this "complexity equals design!" argument fails to take into account emergent complexity; that is, complexity that results over time due to an expansion or collection of simple things. It assumes that the universe was always complex, which we know was not the case, given that prior to the big bang all we had was a dense point of spacetime. The universe gained its complexity over an extremely large span of time via the interactions of very simple things. All that we see now simply was not present at the beginning of the expansionary universe, it formed over time; we didn't even have heavy elements in the early universe.
So even if your argument is that complexity is an indicator of design, I simply have to point out that this complexity is demonstrably an emergent property that was not present at the time that our current universal state came into being. Even if the argument stands, which it doesn't, it's still wrong. There is literally no sense in which the OP's position is even a little bit correct.
So even if your argument is that complexity is an indicator of design, I simply have to point out that this complexity is demonstrably an emergent property that was not present at the time that our current universal state came into being. Even if the argument stands, which it doesn't, it's still wrong. There is literally no sense in which the OP's position is even a little bit correct.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!