[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.

[Dimensio]

As soon as you introduce the word "necessary" you imply, if not say outright, that you require proof as opposed to inference

Incorrect. I am asking for evidence that your claim is a more reasonable explanation than any other, not "proof".

I have never said organized matter performing specific functions "necessarily" involves intelligent design.

Then, if "organized matter performing specific functions" can come about without "intelligent design", why is it more reasonable to believe that the universe came about through "intelligent design" than not?

It is no straw man to say you have no point, especially since you have no explanation for organized matter that performs specific functions.

I am not claiming a cause. You are. It is therefore your responsibility to show that evidence exists that shows that your proposed cause is the real cause. Thus far you have not done so.

It could, however, be explained by intelligent design.

That it "could" have been "intelligent design" is not in any way evidence that it was "intelligent design". Moreover, "intelligent design" itself is not a process, it is a modifier that can be applied to a process. You are asserting, without evidence, that a modifier applies to a process that you have not even specified.