Many creationists often use the complexity argument in their assertion that life was designed by a creator. . . . . . "the human body is far too complex to have just happened by accident".
Also: "Complexity is the result of design".
Then, out come the usual, well-worn analogies of a watch dropped in the sand and a Boeing 747 miraculously coming together during a gust of wind over a junk-yard.
The fundamental flaw of creationists' arguments is the erroneous assumption that complexity is the result of design.
Quite the opposite is true.
The top watchmakers in Switzerland create superb precision timepieces but not out of complexity. Each component and mechanism fulfill their intended purpose, no more, no less. The watch operates with the bare minimum of parts in order for it to reliably keep time. . . . . It is as simple as possible to perform its function and therefore not complex.
Compare this with life forms that are overly complex.
The body of a mammal (the human is a mammal) is a mass of convoluted valves and conduits, fluids, and extraneous organs. There is no way that a designer would ever set out to create a living entity by haphazardly whacking together bunches of organic components on the fly.
The point creationists seem to conveniently overlook is that complexity is the result of "accumulation over time".
For example, we can marvel at the vast and wondrous beauty of an underground cave full of giant stalagmites and stalactites. They weren't created, they were formed by minerals accumulating and bonding over a very long period of time. . . hundreds of thousands of years.
The same goes for life. Life developed over a very long period of time and here, we are talking of billions of years.
Is it not then, more valid to say that life is far too complex (and convoluted) to have been designed?