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

When I made this debate I had a form of "creationism" in mind. Pro has made the point that their is a difference between creationism and intelligent design. I agree with this point, but would like to make the following point. In the west, the biggest advocates of Intelligent Design are people who believe that intelligent designer is God, a God that designed the world about 6000 years ago, with just two humans (read literal interpretation of genesis) Why does this matter ? Cause intelligent design is argued as a scientific fact or theory, so they are trying to get creationism labelled a scientific theory or fact by stealth. Ill have more to say on intelligent design as science later on. It seems to me Pro has taken a supernatural explanation off the table, so I will argue against a "natural" intelligent designer. Most of Pros counter arguments were by saying strawman, strawman. Obviously my arguments don't apply to Pro if they have not used such arguments. But never the less, bad arguments used to support ID like the argument from ignorance are commonly used so are not strawman arguments in the context of the larger debate of ID. Lets go over some of my opening arguments from the first round..... I had said "Argument 1) Natural causes are our default position." Pro had no refutation of this argument, as such it seems to me that Pro agrees with this point. Previously I had said "Argument 2) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Although Pro gives a history lesson on the origin of the phrase, it doesn't refute the point made. Argument 3) Ignorance does not support a supernatural cause. Seems to me Pro agrees with this point. Argument 4) Improbability is not the same as Impossibility Pro doesn't refute this. Pro says "Now the core argument when design is advocated is that a natural phenomenon is examined and design is concluded by rejecting all known undirected causes" This is an argument from ignorance. Even if we rule out all KNOWN undirected causes, we can't then say it has been proven that intelligent design is true. Why ? because there is another option, that even if we rule out all known undirected causes, it still leaves the option open that their are UNKNOWN undirected causes. If you want to argue Intelligent design, you have to show evidence/proof of intelligent design. So what is the evidence/proof ? Pro gives an argument, that if some one makes a claim like Intelligent Desinger, the fact that is made, and published, means it is a rational belief. Well I could publish my hypothesis that invisible pink unicorns are the cause of the space time continuum, according to Pros argument, if I can get that hypothesis published and peer reviewed, it is part of science and thus rational. A hypothesis that is peer reviewed does not equate to it being a rational view. Counter arguments for a natural intelligent designer CA 1 - Falsifiability Seeing that Pro is trying to argue that intelligent design is scientific, part of science includes such questions as, if X is false, how could we prove that it is false ? See I could argue my invisible pink unicorns hypothesis, and no one could prove me wrong, but you see in science its not enough that no one can prove the hypothesis wrong, there needs to be a way to prove the hypothesis false if it is untrue. So how is an intelligent designer hypothesis falsifiable ? CA 2 - An intelligent designer requires an explanation An intelligent designer can not design something more complex than its self. If an intelligent designer is required to explain complexity, then the intelligent designer its self needs an intelligent designer and that intelligent designer needs an intelligent designer.............unto infinity. If some one tries to get out of this infinite regress by stating something like, well there is one intelligent designer who them self it not caused by any other intelligent designer eg God. But this undercuts the argument of the necessity of an intelligent designer, cause if something as complex as God can exist without an intelligent designer, then so can humans who are even less complex than your typical christian/jewish/isamic/theistic Gods, and if complexity requires an intelligent designer, then a complex God requires an intelligent designer. I look forward to Pros response.