[Coyoteman]

How much complexity do we have to discover before it becomes an insurmountable conclusion to think that it just happened? Is there such a limit, ever? If not, can science ever realize it has limitations?

Clarke's Third Law:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

The California Indians thought Portola, riding a horse, was a single being. They soon learned the difference, but, their initial explaination was probably supernatural, only to be replaced by a natural explaination shortly after.

TV and cameras, to some aboriginal cultures, are magic--i.e., supernatural. Until they learn the tricks of the trade.

Now, explain how we can tell "the world is too complex to have evolved without the help of an unknown designer."

Include full references to the possibilities in Clarke's Third Law, and be specific in your answer.

[Coyoteman]

Too many spelling errors in my previous post.

Good night all! Thanks for the interesting discussions.

[ThirstyMan]

I asked:
"How much complexity do we have to discover before it becomes an insurmountable conclusion to think that it just happened? Is there such a limit, ever? If not, can science ever realize it has limitations?"

You responded:
Clarke's Third Law:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
The California Indians thought Portola, riding a horse, was a single being. They soon learned the difference, but, their initial explanation was probably supernatural, only to be replaced by a natural explanation shortly after.

Silly Indians!
But I see your point. When is magic an appropriate scientific explanation? never.
I guess the answer to your question is: if "advanced technology" is present, we want to know, how did it get there?
A Darwinian explanation would say that a trail of successive incremental innocuous steps was capable of leading to a complexity beyond possible demonstration, explanation or recognition.
Is that right?