The derivation of (yes, incomplete, but useful) arithmetic from basic axioms, or the derivation (in another sense) of reasonably reliable arithmetic from our evolved intuition, is a perfect example of complexity arising from simplicity. There's no comparison.

And in a more abstract sense — the transuniversal truth of arithmetic, not the practical discovery or application of it, nor any attempts to formalize it — there's nothing to "arise" at all.

In any case, the "Therefore Dawkins and his opponents are equally wrong" sounds like a non-sequitur. A more understandable conclusion would be "I am wrong about the implications of the beliefs of Dawkins and his opponents." He basically says "If you believe in Intelligent Design, you must believe that God decided that 2+2 would equal 4. You don't believe that, therefore your belief system is inconsistent or you are a hypocrite. If you believe in evolution by natural selection, you must believe that 2+2 evolved to equal 4. You don't believe that, therefore your belief system is inconsistent or you are a hypocrite." He's just making up new beliefs, ascribing them to his opponents, and pointing out their ridiculousness.