You're just verbally identifying the presupposition of the uniformity of natural law as the "general theory of intelligent design." (You could name it "Bob" just as easily.) First it has nothing to do with the (putatively) scientific approach called "intelligent design". Second, as I've already said, if anything it contradicts ID. So far as you philosophically generalize the uniformity of natural law, the result is naturalism. ID is nothing if not a denial of naturalism.
The presence of organized matter behaving according to predictable laws is well-substantiated.
The fact that intelligent design entails the organization of matter so it behaves predictably is also well-substantiated.
The fact that the organization of matter occurs under the agency of intelligent agents is also well-substantiated.
When one is faced with these well-substantiated facts, it is hardly an unreasonable stretch to infer an intelligent agent as responsible for the presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws.
The best way to falsify this theory is to provide an example of matter that is wholly disorganized and behaves entirely contrary to any predictable laws. Who's to say it cannot be done?