That is quite a fair statement, and I did not mean to imply a perfect analogy. I do realize of course that when I fix my 1967 Camaro I am not overcoming the second law of thermodynamics. On the contrary, I am "opening the system", and introducing an element (me) which adds order. The point I was making was that, in general, chaos does not breed ordered complexity. It really was meant to be taken as that. In fact, even in my analogy, there is a real possibility that an arrangement of components into the aforementioned 57 Chevy would occur. I just maintain that it is extremely unlikely - and this is the heart of my analogy. Follow me for a moment in a silly supposition. I suppose one could make the argument that the universe as we know it was created yesterday in a huge explosion of matter, which randomly placed all of the atoms in my brain (and I have been accused of having fewer than normal a time or two) into place. Suppose this explosion also randomly created chemicals and synapses (pardon my obvious lack of understanding of brain function) and therefore implanted all the memories I have. These memories are therefore false - but by chance, they match the false memories of my friends and family. I can't say that isn't possible, if all of the primordial legos were there. I just think it is unlikely. Now what I am getting at in that last, very obtuse point, was that I don't find the complexity of any conceivable primordial cell to be likely to have been generated by random processes. I do believe that cells are composed of matter, and perhaps some day we shall be able to build them from scratch. It doesn't change the fact that I believe it more likely that life on Earth was as a result of Intelligent Design. But then again, a staunch materialist will argue that my explanation, an Intelligent Designer, is in their estimation, more unlikely. I can understand, and as a person who considers himself pretty skeptical in nature, respect their point. Ultimately, I have other reasons for my beliefs, some I would characterize as objective, others not. Perhaps someday we will have an opportunity to discuss them in another setting. Lastly (and this is not directed at you, stremba), I do wish that the believers in these forums would be a little more careful about condescension and name-calling. You aren't exactly winning any for our side, ya know? As Christians, please hold yourself to a higher standard than that. Do I feel when I read the pro-evolution posts, some are insulting? I sure do. When I am insulted, is my first reaction to want to kick somebody's head in? Yup. But then I think, "hey, here is a person that I believe God created and loves as much as me. Maybe, if I respect their line of thinking, and argue logically and amicably, we can learn from each other." After all, their comments often help me sharpen my own arguments at the very least.
Use the "enter" key!
I, and I think most of those on the pro-evolution side, have absolutely no problem with those who believe in either creationism or ID as a matter of faith. In fact, one of my main points in all of these threads is that a belief in God is not in any way incompatible with any modern scientific theory, evolution included. In fact, that is my personal position. The problem I have (and I believe the problem most other evolution supporters have) is with the creationists who instead of saying, "We see and understand the evidence you have for evolution, and will admit that evolution is a reasonable conclusion based on this evidence, but my faith tells me that it's wrong," but rather will try to use misstatements of what the theory of evolution says, mischaracterization of the evidence in favor of evolution, and outright lies about the scientific community in order to try to knock down evolution. As a scientist, I am perfectly willing to accept that evolution might very well be wrong, and that creationism or ID might very well be correct. However, science is not the way, at least for creationism, to find this out. Creationism is not falsifiable and never will be, since no conceivable observation is incompatible with an omnipotent God. ID is not now, but could potentially be falsifiable. What is needed is some conclusive test for the presence of design. Given that, it would be, at least theoretically, a trivial matter to settle the question of design in life. Without that, however, all we have is a philosophical/religious debate, not science.
As far as your assertion that organized complexity doesn't spontaneously arise from chaos, that's not necessarily true in all cases. Consider the chaos of molecules of water vapor in the cold upper layers of the troposphere. These cold, chaotic molecules will spontaneously give rise to a very ordered and symmetric arrangement of solid water molecules, namely a snowflake. Furthermore, arguments from improbability are not necessarily convincing. For example, I could use an argument from improbability to prove that you don't exist. After all, there are several million genes in your genome. Presumably if one of these is changed, the result would be a different person. Hence, since it's so extremely unlikely that all these millions of genes would arrange themselves in the manner needed to produce you, it's extremely unlikely that you exist. The real truth is that all kinds of extremely unlikely events are constantly occurring.