Is Intelligent Design a Rational or Irrational belief (Part 4)

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 CON, which means I claim that intelligent design is an irrational belief. My opponent will be the PRO, so will be arguing that intelligent design is a rational 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 an irrational belief In order for my opponent to win they must argue that Intelligent Design is a rational 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. Opening Argument...... Previously I have argued in favor of Intelligent Design, but in this debate I am jumping to the other side. Argument 1) Natural causes are our default position. Some time ago, when there was lighting and thunder, there were people that ascribed a supernatural cause to this phenomenon. With more understanding and less superstition this has become an untenable position. Some time ago, some people subscribed sickness and disease to a supernatural cause eg God or demons, instead of germs bacteria, and mutations of cells. When some one hears a loud bang, they don't first think, ahh that must be God, they automatically assume a natural cause. The point being, in order to function we assume a natural cause, and the origin of life and the universe should not be different, unless we have good reason to over turn this general principle. Seeing my opponent is the one arguing for intelligent design I will leave it up to them explain why we should over turn this general principle. Argument 2) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There isn't any shortage of extraordinary claims, and to believe all of them would be disastrous. Claiming that an all knowing, all powerful, all good, uncreated being created the universe is an extraordinary claim, but where is the extraordinary evidence ? Argument 3) Ignorance does not support a supernatural cause. "Where did X come from ? We don't know, thus God did it" Without understanding of something, its tempting to use "God" or the "Supernatural" as an explanation "God did it", But there is another option when faced with ignorance, and that is to say I don't know. The I don't know answer isn't very intellectual or emotionally fulfilling, but its the rational response. To say that ignorance in something in anyway supports a supernatural cause is logically fallacious and thus should be rejected. Argument 4) Improbability is not the same as Impossibility To argue that an improbably event or series of events must be the result of a supernatural cause is logically fallacious. Go throw a rock some where, where it lands and also when it lands, on the spot that it landed, is extremely improbable, but never the less, there it is. An improbable outcome yet without a supernatural cause. I look forward to Pros' response.