I wasn't the one who developed or proposed the "irreducible complexity" argument (as if one needs a mirror to confirm there is a nose on one's face). Even pieces of a complex object, to the extent they exhibit any functionality at all, imply intelligence and design. Science can just as easily ask of those pieces, "How did this come about through natural processes?" But certain parties define "natural processes" as being devoid of any signs of intelligence or design, and that is where I beg to differ.
Show me one natural process that does not demonstrate, in any manner or degree, some form of intelligence or design. If I have the capacity to distinguish one object or process from another, then it must have distinguishing attributes; it must be formed or operate in a manner that communicates its existence through one of my senses.
If the reference point for intelligence is the human observer, and the human observer has consistently apprehended human intelligence applying itself by way of tools designed to accomplish a given task, why would it be unreasonable to infer, when the dynamism of the universe exhibits functionalism, that intelligence is also operative in those cases (albeit currently intangible through any instrument of science other than human reason)?
No, they don't. Some complex objects self-assemble from random components without intelligence or design. You can keep repeating this uncorroborated assertion if you like, but it doesn't advance your argument.
The Universe looks organized to you, and it is in some aspects, though not in others. You attribute organization to a designer, since in your experience organization has always been produced by a designer. But your experience is not an infallible probe of the Universe. We know of scores of complex structures that self-organize under non-equilibrium conditions without any external intervention whatsoever, let alone an intelligent intervention.