> Complexity is necessary to differentiate whether
> something was the result of ID or random processes.
> For example, [snip]
That is another example of the fraud of ID. They provide examples but don't address the examples that are provided by their critics.
OF COURSE any hypothesis will have examples that will support it!
Imagine that I develop the hypothesis that gravity causes all things to fall towards the Great Wall of China.
For my first example, I stand at a place exactly on the opposite side of the Earth from the Great Wall. I drop something. It falls straight down.
Voila! **I** have found an example that supports my hypothesis.
Then I fly in an airplane over China. As we are flying over the Great Wall I, once again, drop something.
Yet again, it falls straight down just as my hypothesis predicted.
Voila! ANOTHER example supporting my hypothesis.
Therefore everything falls towards the Great Wall, right?
Wait, you say. If your claim is true, then if I am standing next to the Great Wall and drop something then it should fall sideways.
That's YOUR example. It shows that my hypothesis is false.
So for the ID hypothesis to be correct, it must be able to answer the examples provided by skeptics, NOT just those that you provide for yourself.
I readily admit that some intelligently designed things are complex.
But some intelligently designed things are NOT complex.
So complexity has NOTHING to do with recognizing ID.
Here's another example.
Imagine two alien spaceships visit Earth. One of them lands in a forest filled with Oak Trees.
The other one lands in a large field with a line of telephone poles (with the wires removed).
Oak trees are MUCH more complex than telephone poles. Telephone poles, of course, are just straight, long, cylindrical, pieces of wood. Oak trees have branches that bend in many different directions.
Also the typical random arrangement of Oak trees in a forest is much more complex than the equidistant, straight line arrangement of telephone poles that is typical of what we see.
So the oak trees are much more complex.
Moreover the oak trees are more "specified". They have a clear purpose - living things that, among other things, create oxygen that support other living things.
A line of telephone poles without wires would have no apparent purpose whatsoever so they would be less "specified".
Which of the two scenarios would convince the aliens that they were visiting a planet with intelligent designers?
Obviously the LESS "complex" and less "specified" scenario - the telephone poles - SHOULD be more convincing. That's because those of us living on Earth know that the telephone poles have an intelligently designed purpose.
But "Specified complexity" doesn't explain that.
In fact if the “specified complexity’ argument was used it would cause the aliens to arrive at the opposite conclusion.
Therefore "specified complexity" is an intellectual and scientific fraud.