Simply dismissing the argument of â€˜complexity' as 'that was debunked years ago' does not cut it.
ALL arguments in science require evidence to even enter the ring, the argument based on "complexity" is mwrely a way to back away from presenting any evidence and avoiding the counter evidence which foiled your worldviews.
"Complexity" is a haven for fact free beliefs. Whenever we ask a "complexity- ist" to provide evidence and examples of what they can come up with on the fact side, theyve always just kept repeating that as an argument. You cant us your conclusion as your evidence. It just dont work that way.
I hope youre not gonna go through that **** again are you?
First, there is no 'ring.' Science is not a territory to be policed. Science is just part of a broader culture of knowing and studying. Individuals take information from science and include it in their personal path of truth-seeking. Some reach a level of truth-seeking that adds to scientific discourse as well. While some people might be 'fighting to police the ring' for bad science, that is just territorialism and should be ignored.
What is important for critical thinking is to ask questions of scientific claims by understanding what the critical aspect of them is. E.g. if you read that science knows the universe is expanding and they are just trying to specify details about whether the expansion is accelerating or slowing and at what rate; then you need to learn about redshift and why it is taken as an indication of physical motion away from an observer.
Once you understand that, you can question whether the redshift actually indicates expansion or if there could be some other cause. It is not insane or wrong to question whether observed facts could have other explanations besides the ones that are published as 'scientific consensus.' People shouldn't chastize others for thinking broadly and questioning interpretations of data/facts. It is their right to do that. You can tell them that you are thoroughly convinced that the redshift really is caused by expansion, but there's no reason to chastize them for questioning and wondering if some other explanation might exist and even speculating about what other explanation could be true.
Now you might say that this gives people like flat-Earthers more credit than they deserve for basically just dismissing numerous facts as being fake facts or whatever. But the issue shouldn't be giving people credit or not; when all we should all be doing is trying to make sense of our lives and the universe as best we can, and if we are sincerely motivated to question whether the Earth is really round, then why isn't that as good a path of critical thought as any other to embark on?
Assuming that truth is real and convergent, that means anyone questioning any knowledge will eventually become convinced of the truth, if it is in fact true. If it's not, critical questioning may not lead them back to it. If their seeking is biased, it might lead them away from the truth in favor of whatever they want to believe for whatever reason. Either way, however, there is always the possibility of critical discussion and thought that will lead them away from provably-false assumptions; but of course there is also the hazard of misinformation disguising itself as valid critical discussion and thought. In short, critical assessment of truth-claims is not easy work, any more than investigation and conviction of crime is.