[jogger08152]

Not meaning any offense, Dude, but Dawkin's response to the 747 analogy is quite weak. (At least, assuming the summaries I've read do a decent job summing up his "rebuttal".)

Specifically, if we were to stipulate that a designer would indeed need to be quite complex (and I'm not sure whether or not this is true, but let's grant it for the sake of discussion),
1) "He" would not need to be "designed" himself. The notion of the "unmoved mover" is an old, fundamental concept in Christianity.
2) The point of the 747 analogy is strictly to make a comparison, because one way or another, the 747 (complex life in the universe) indisputable *does* exist. The question that remains is, is it more likely that a complex, undesigned designer built the 747, or was it the tornado?

Quite clearly Dawkins would prefer it to be the latter, but his preference (and the reasoning he uses to support it) makes little sense to me.