[dubyagee]

In short, the complexity of the universe—and one's inability to explain it in full—is not in itself an argument for a Creator.

True, not in and of itself. But it is ONE argument for a creator. And it certainly is not an argument against creation. So what's the point? It doesn't seem he really has one.

[PatrickHenry]

Over 100 posts in 3 hours. Not bad. But hardly a record.

[PatrickHenry]

Asimov:
In short, the complexity of the universe—and one's inability to explain it in full—is not in itself an argument for a Creator.

You:
True, not in and of itself. But it is ONE argument for a creator.

Actually, no. It's not an argument at all. Unless you want to claim that anything we can't explain today is an argument for a Creator. There have been too many previously-unexplained phenomena (disease, lightning, fertility, weather, etc.) that were once attributed to the Olympian gods, but which we now know to be natural phenomena. Will you allow the claim that things we can't yet explain are still good arguments for Zeus' existence?

[LogicWings]

But it is ONE argument for a creator.

No, it is just an argument for not knowing. His point is that, in science, Assertions must be founded on something. and creationism isn't founded on any evidence at all. None. The whole argument comes down to, "Well, there isn't any OTHER explanation." Which isn't, logically speaking, an argument at all.

The concept of a 'creator' is not, by definition, cannot, be something that human beings 'experience' so the concept 'floats,' it is dependent upon nothing in human experience. This, as a basis for a scientific view, violates all the rules of logic, upon which science depends.