[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[Case]

[Platt]
Apparently you didn't read my answer. You assume something has to be complex
to design complexity. Yet complexity theory demonstrates simple things can
create great complexity. 

[Case]
Just to clear up an apparent misunderstanding about sensitive dependency on
initial conditions or the Butterfly Effect. The idea that flapping gossamer
wings in Tibet causes a blizzard in Vermont is a little misleading. The
butterfly does not cause the blizzard. Rather what this means is that if one
were able to adopt Ham's perspective and transcend space/time for a bit and
observe weather patterns from a point in time A to a point in time B certain
weather condition would be seen. If this transcendent omnipresent being then
reset the initial conditions back to point A and allowed only the minor
variation in planetary conditions of a single butterfly alighting from a
flower, the weather conditions at point B in time would be different than on
the first run through. The degree of difference is a matter of the length of
time. The more time passes the more the slight difference of the butterfly
wings is magnified.

This effect extends to ever smaller scales, down to the level of quantum
indeterminacy. So that it is "in principle" impossible to predict the
future; as any fluxuation in our estimate of the current or past state of
affairs will defeat our attempts at prediction.