"Nevertheless, because their position is not entirely one of fantasy and not entirely without merit from the standpoint of reasonable discourse, I am willing to grant the name calling despite their inability to present some cause other than intelligent design as explicative of the ubiquitous presence of organized matter that performs specific functions." [Emphasis mine]
Yet you refuse to define 'organized matter' and specify the functions this matter performs. You also avoid explaining how self organizing systems that perform specific functions are different than your 'organized matter'.
I spent a great deal of time not all that long ago trying to get you to tell me how to determine if a given chunk of matter is organized or not, and what kind of function is 'specific'. I never did get an answer.
After watching the Chugabrew ball randomly bounce off the walls, all the while carefully avoiding my questions, I decided conversing with you is no different than conversing with a Turing testbot.
It gets old defining and explaining the obvious to someone who knows better. If an object is intelligible to science then it is organized. If the object is arranged with other objects so as to perform a more complex function it may be demonstrably due to an intelligent agent. Otherwise an intelligent agent (or the effects thereof) may be reasonably inferred. The organization of matter extends to both microscopic and macroscopic entities. If particle matter were to disintegrate into chaos then the argument and evidence for intelligent design would cease. Until then the evidence for intelligent design may be considered ubiquitous to the extent science has an intelligible universe to explore. Get it?