I thought it was called "Petitio Principii" or some such. Either way, I'm not sure how it applies to the assertion that intelligent design works well as a theory due to the extensive presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws. Of course the evidence is indirect. Most of the evidence science enjoys is indirect. Anyway, maybe you could point out to me what this has to do with my spouse?
And that question is "When did you stop raping little boys?" It puts everbody on an equal footing.
Logical fallacies have latin names. Those used to structured debate generally learn them by those names. You've probably heard of the more common ones, like ad hominem. Petitio Principii is also known as "begging the question" or "circular reasoning." It is related to "complex question" as both are logical fallacies of presumption. "Loaded question" is also related.
, I'm not sure how it applies to the assertion that intelligent design works well as a theory
Because your statements supporting organized matter (indeed, everything) being the result of a designer presume the designer, and even the designing itself. Thus, it is a fallacy of presumption. I had hoped that you'd see the obvious connection with the wife-beating question (it presumes without evidence that you beat your wife) as Alamo Girl did, and probably everybody else, but they were mean/nice enough to let me continue. Obviously I was wrong.
What I suspect you intend is that "order cannot rise out of chaos in an unguided physical system". That is an unequivocal statement. There must always be a guide to the system, order does not rise spontaneously. In the case of weather, the physical laws are guides to the system.
But when you consider all of physical reality it is apparant there was a beginning. The measure of the cosmic microwave background radiation back in the 60's showed there was a beginning of space/time in this universe. Moreover, all cosmologies - whether big bang, ekpyrotic, cyclic, multi-world, multi-verse, imaginary time, hesitating universe, etc. - require a beginning because all of them rely on geometry for physical causality.
But the void in which there was a beginning was null - not just zero spatial and temporal dimensions, but no space, no time, no energy/matter, no thing - therefore, no physical causality. Also, no mathematics, no logic, no form, no automony, no qualia, no thing.
Thus there must have been an uncaused cause, a first cause, a guide so that order could rise out of the void. And because there can be no autonomous entities in the void, it must be the singular transcendent existence, i.e. God.
Therefore we can say that the existence of order from a beginning is evidence a guide to the system in the beginning.
Likewise we can observe that the unreasonable effectiveness of math (Wigner, Vafa), existence of information (successful communication) in biological systems, autonomy, semiosis and intelligence itself - all suggest the same conclusion, that there is a guide to the system from the beginning.
Two other points which, IMHO, would bolster your argument:
1. One cannot say a thing is random in the system without knowing what the system "is". And we do not yet know what the system "is" wrt physical reality (e.g. spatial/temporal dimensions, matter, etc.)
2. Causality can also be stated "were it not for A, C would not be". In this case, were it not for space/time, events would not occur, etc.