Exactly. That's why designers prefer simplicity.
That's an example of a trade-off. The car is designed as simply as possible, within the demands on weight, power, gas mileage, reliability, safety, etc. Designers do not make things more complex than necessary.
I agree the universe screams complexity. However, any time you leave a system to function on its own, it grows more complex, more random, and less functional. Complexity, if it screams anything at all in this regard, screams a lack of a designer.
While I can see the point of view you're speaking from, it seems to me that you've got your nose too close to that grindstone, with not enough scope in your world view to see the other aspect CJ and I are talking about. You aren't even keeping Darwinian precepts in focus while you try to defend your narrow view. Darwinian precepts, as expostulated in The Origin of Species, would point to the fact that the evolutionary process leading to more variety in life as the pieces fall into different functional arrangements, or gradually change under some set of conditions which will select for different survivors/development trails naturally. . . . .
You are locked into some kind of argument that requires designers to be "limited" and unable to conceive of systems which are not unlike things which have already been made and found to work. Thus, if it isn't just the simplest way of doing it, they won't think of it and couldn't make it work. And of course everything you look at you will think just fits that expectation, just like everything we find in nature must be interpeted on the model you already embrace.
I think it can all fit just as well within the scope of the handiwork of an intelligent designer, simply using the principles which we see as "evolutionary change" as one aspect of approaching the problem of how to keep the ball rolling. I don't think it's impossible that such a designer can, like we are learning to do, effect some changes on purpose.
You're the one who is limiting the possibilities with a preconceived dogma. Perhaps even more than CJ who simply postulates an almighty creator who can conceive of complex systems literally de novo and speak a word, so to speak, and have it all happen, like now......
If there are natural laws that are self-existing or eternal, it is only reasonable to suppose that any intelligent being, however defined, might use those principles, on purpose and with designs to accomplish something. . . . maybe simple, but maybe more complex as well. . . . .
When we have billions of humans operating on the surface of this planet, exerting intelligent actions on the life systems at our hands every day seeking more efficient ways of producing food and fiber, more attractive plants, juicer veggies or whatever, you are still denying the possibility of "Intelligent Design".
How stupid do you actually insist upon being, anyway. The folks who argue ID and attribute this to an "unobservable god" nevertheless have the proof they want in the things that "unobservable god" has created, and they love their God as they imagine or define their God, but they are not as far from the reality of things as you are. Whether there is such a God or not, the whole fabric of life is filled with living things which possesses some form of "intelligence" and which do stuff on purpose, or design. Which greatly augments the purely "random" or materialistic sort of processes. . . .
It is something evolutionists must incorporate into their schema for development, or if they won't they will just go on being idiots.
