Arguments involving simplicity and complexity do not sit well with those who would altogether avoid the notion of intelligent design. Neither does the presence of organized matter that behaves according to laws. To explore the semantic implications of words such as "intelligence" and "design" as they might apply to physical matter would be wholly out of bounds for one who subscribes to the notion that intelligent design has little or nothing to do with the universe as we know it. And while the larger part of evolutionary teaching is based upon reasonable conjecture, its adherents are loath to allow reasonable conjecture in those cases where matter happens to be organized, even if only by appearance. If it has the appearance of evolving, by chuck, it must have evolved. If it has the appearance of being organized, by chuck, it still must have evolved.
Please excuse the interuption. Just wanted to add a thought. I have been reading these creation/evolution threads and even participated some for quite a while. I don’t think that much is being accomplished because of the belief systems concerning origins at the root of the discussions. For the evolutionist the answer has to be naturalism, hence his theory of abiogenesis, (non biological origins). (As Lewontin said, “…..we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.”) This theory dates at least as far back as Aristotle and the defunct idea of spontaneous generation and has undergone revision until it now states that life rose from non-life via the evolutionary guiding principles of mutations adding genetic material, survival of the fittest, and natural selection. On the other hand those of us of the opposite persuasion subscribe to the teleological principles that anything that evinces design proves that there is a designer. This thinking has been in the mind of man for a very long time dating at least to the Biblical Psalms around 3000 years ago and restated by the Apostle Paul in the first letter to the Roman Christians nearly 2000 years ago. Anytime, and in any manner, that you attack the naturalistic theory of origins you automatically raise the spectre of creation. Consequently, given the political environment, the courts cannot allow any criticism of the ToE to be taught in the government schools. Fair or unfair, the fact is, that in the government schools, the evolutionist wins. For those that accept the naturalistic theory of abiogenesis I wonder how they account for the natural processes of evolution resulting in cultures all over the world concluding that there is a creator? Does this simply mean that evolution has a long way to go until we cast this terrible thought out of the collective brain? Or will we eventually evolve God?