[Dimensio]

If it were not the nature of intelligent design to create and arrange matter so that it performs specific functions you might have a point.

That "intelligent design" may be a component in the process of arranging matter "so that it performs specific functions" is not evidence that "intelligent design" is a necessary component in such a process, nor is it evidence that "intelligent design" was a component in the origin of the universe. That an event is possible is not evidence that an event occured. You have offered no evidence that "intelligent design" is the best possible explanation for the existence of the universe, and in fact you have not even specified the mechanics of this alleged "intelligent design" process nor have you offered a method to evaluate your claims.

Using a strawman to claim that I do not have a point does not actually invalidate my statement.

[Fester Chugabrew]

As soon as you introduce the word "necessary" you imply, if not say outright, that you require proof as opposed to inference. I have never said organized matter performing specific functions "necessarily" involves intelligent design. It is no straw man to say you have no point, especially since you have no explanation for organized matter that performs specific functions. No possible explanation = no point. It could, however, be explained by intelligent design.