"do you have any back up for these statements or did you just make them up on the spot? Link? "

Since your statements were supported by copious references, I guess I should do likewise.

Statement 1:
"complexity is not well-defined"

Support from
http://www.santafe.edu/education/csss/csss05/papers/anastasiadis_et_al._cssssf05.pdf
"The first section discusses the ill-defined notion of complexity and describes the quantitative tools that we will use in an attempt to tie it down."

This is one quote among dozens (perhaps hundreds I could use). Why should you agree with SFI (santa fe institute): they are among the pre-eminent experts in the world on the subject of complexity. They are very highly networked and have access to thousands of people who don't actively work there INCLUDING every other place of note that also works on complexity. Conclusion: if the world's experts say that it's ill-defined, I think we can admit that it's ill-defined.

(Other source:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l152t928842k5052/
Bar-yam is a world expert at NECCSI and wrote 'complex dynamic systems')


Statement 2:
"Evolution is known to create complexity"
Support:
http://www.ulinkx.com/video/3997287

Support: genetic algorithms.

Statement 3:
"order can arise from disorder"

Support:
Stuart Kauffman, one of the leading researchers in the field, wrote a book called "The Origins of Order" that discusses some of these issues. It's important to understand that order like complexity is not precisely defined - and can mean different things in different contexts.
Unlike creationists who, in fact, look at an unknown situation and then start making a bunch of utterly asinine statements about what couldn't possible be true, Stuart K has actually researched the topic - intense review of the work of others AND his own biological and computer sim research.

Here is a review of the book that summarizes it nicely:
http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general...i=9780195079517