The theory of intelligent design is handy from both an indictive and deductive standpoint. I tend to think most people would take the inductive approach because most people sense there is a God. At least that's what recorded human history denotes. It is true that from a logical standpoint a theory that demostrates a smooth corroboration between inductive and deductive reasoning could easily be construed as circular reasoning. Maybe that's all it is.
To say, "God designed the universe, therefore it will give evidence of intelligent design, or to say "The universe gives evidence of intelligent design, therefore God designed it," is to say the same thing while exchanging the subject and object of focus. But from a simply reasonable standpoint, it makes sense to deduce intelligent design in any case where human intellect is capable of apprehending data as opposed to deducing some other case or agent. What else can reasonably account for the fact we have data that retains its consitency to the extent human intellect is able to observe and comment upon it?
You will have to tighten your axioms to constrain the designer so that he must necessarily produce "organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws" for our observations of it to constitute evidence.
On the contrary, it is not a matter of necessity but of reasonable inference. "Necessity" is an absolute concept. Science is speculative.
Also, could you be a little more explicit about what "organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws" means to you?
IMO the most convincing evidence of intelligent design is the fact that particle matter does not disintegrate but retains its properties and consistencies from age to age. The best evidence to falsify intelligent design would be the disintegration of particle matter. There may be examples of it out there, but in terms of human science I am hard pressed to find an example.
Scientists reason inductively to develop theory, but evidence for a theory must be a deduction. At least that is how I understand it.
What else can reasonably account for the fact we have data that retains its consitency to the extent human intellect is able to observe and comment upon it?
I think it is better, in the absense of real evidence, to simply say "I don't know." The God-of-the-gaps approach, which is what you're advocating for this particular gap, is not a good one. People are so darn smart, they have time and again come up with good naturalistic explanations that eliminate the gaps. The danger for people of faith is that God seems to disappear as well. Better I think to build faith on a lasting foundation well out of Science's path.
As to your particular question, let me offer a speculation. Let's say that the universe is truly an infinite multiverse and that all possibilities are realized in it. I think that easily accounts for a situation such as ours. How shall we choose between your speculation and mine (or the many others that might be made)?
"Necessity" is an absolute concept. Science is speculative.
Speculation is certainly part of science, but scientific theories are not speculative. Scientific theories are absolute and make absolure claims. Don't mistake the possibility (or IMO probability) that these claims are erroneous with speculativeness, they are two different things.
the most convincing evidence of intelligent design is the fact that particle matter does not disintegrate but retains its properties and consistencies from age to age. The best evidence to falsify intelligent design would be the disintegration of particle matter.
Are you familiar with radioactive decay or annihilation processes? One mode of radioactivity is beta decay in which a neutral neutron is converted to a positively charged proton, a negatively charged electron and a neitrino. That is a big change in properties. In an annihilation process matter is completely converted to electromagnetic energy. That is about as much disintegration as is possible.
How do you reconcile these facts with your claim of evidence for ID?