Is Intelligent Design a Rational or Irrational belief (Part 2)

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, and because it has design was built for a purpose and not an accident 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, and because it has design was built for a purpose and not an accident 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 humans have an intelligent cause. 2nd argument............ Before I give my 2nd argument I want to clarify what I mean by using certain terms By design - I mean has an intelligent cause (example like a car, the intelligent/intent cause being humans) By accident - I mean a cause with no intelligent intent ( atheist view that the universe began to exist without an intelligent cause) By necessity - I mean a cause which exists because its non existence is impossible (eg God or something eternal or something self existent or prime mover) 1) Something exists either by design or accident or necessity 2) Humans do not exist by accident or necessity 3) Therefore humans exist by design I look forward to Cons response.