Is Intelligent Design a Rational or Irrational belief (Part3)

My last debate on this subject my opponent didn't turn up for the last few rounds, so I will put the same argument up again and let some one else take a shot at it. NOTE if you have a problem with definitions or rules or anything, please post in the comment section first, to see whether we can both agree to amended rules or descriptions before starting. I will be the PRO, which means I claim that intelligent design is a rational belief. My opponent will be the CON, so will be arguing that intelligent design is an irrational belief. (PLEASE NOTE, their is no win by default here, both sides have to justify their side) In order to win I have to argue that Intelligent Design is a rational belief (I don't have convince anyone that its true, just that its a rational belief) In order for my opponent to win they must argue that Intelligent Design is an irrational belief (they don't have to convince anyone that its false, just that its an irrational belief) Definitions Intelligent Design An intelligent designer, also referred to as an intelligent agent, is the willed and self-conscious entity that the intelligent design movement argues had some role in the origin and/or development of life Intelligent design refers to the theory that intelligent causes are responsible for the origin of the universe and of life in all its diversity Rational - agreeable to reason Reason - the faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge, either by direct understanding of first principles or by argument. Notes - I'd like to keep the main arguments to things on earth and specifically humans --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Opening statements.............. If some one came across a car for the first time, and started observation and tests on it, they would probably figure out some of its "parts" such as wheels for moving, steering wheel for direction, engine for transfer energy into motion, etc and come to the conclusion these parts working, not just in themselves but complimentary to the other parts of the car, this person would be in their rational rights to conclude the car exists by design. If something came across a human for the first time, and started observation and tests on it, they would probably figure out some of its "parts" such as legs for walking, mouth for chewing, heart for pumping blood etc and come to the conclusion these parts working, not just in themselves but complimentary to the other parts of the human, this something would be in their rational rights to conclude the human exists by design. 1st argument............. 1) Design occurs due to having an intelligent cause. 2) Design can be deduced by the observation of multiple working parts working not just in themselves but working in complimentary with other working parts. 3) Humans have multiple working parts working not just in themselves but working in complimentary with other working parts. 4) Therefore we can deduce that humans have design. 5) Therefore it is rational to believe that humans have an intelligent cause. My 2nd argument..... To clarify what I mean by something existing out of "necessity" in this argument, I mean something that exists cause their is no possibility that it can't exist. Humans existence, could of not happened, and going into the future, humans existence could cease, I don't think this claim will be challenged but we shall see. Therefore this rules out human existence , existing out of "necessity" But even if human existence is contingent, why not believe that human existence is totally the result of no intent, and absent any intent ? Once again I used the same reasoning from the first argument that its rational to deduce that humans have design. If humans have design this clearly refutes the claim that humans existence is the result of no intent. But only something with "intelligence" is capable of intent. For instance a computer can follow its programming, but it doesn't have the "intent" to do something, sure its follows the process, but the intent lies in the person that put the programming in the computer in the first place. To summarize my 2nd argument.... 1) Something exists either by intent or no intent or necessity. 2) Humans do not exist by no intent or necessity. 3) Therefore humans exist by intent. I look forward to Con's response.