The RCD blog posted a piece in favor of ID, see here.
I replied as follows, which is cross-post here because my reply there might simply be deleted:
except that you cannot limit logic merely because of biblical doctrine. If you believe "complexity requires designer", then that logic cannot be circumscribed merely because it would otherwise destroy some biblical doctrine you currently believe in.
And yet if you DON'T come up with objective justification to delimit how far you can push "complexity requires designer", then there is no reason to assume such logic would be limited to certain contexts, so that under your own logic, god's creation of complex things necessarily requires that he himself possess at least that much complexity, if not more, in which case god's own complexity also requires a designer.
You are free to say "the logic has to stop somewhere, and the bible says it stops with god", but skeptics are also free to ignore you when you degrade yourself from "apologist" to "preacher". You are not achieving your goal of proving atheists to be unreasonable by simply insisting that the demands required of your bible force you to insist that "complexity requires designer" has necessary limits.
So for now, since you obviously DO think god's complexity can simply exist without requiring a designer, what criteria do you use to decide whether an instance of complexity implies intelligent design?
Do you have anything more substantive than simply "whether it harmonizes with my religion"?
