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?
Organized matter is real evidence. From it we can safely say, "I infer." That is a proper expression for science, and it holds true for every observer. Unless you mean something more tangible as "real evidence."
Do you observe a play under the assumption you simply don't know if there is a director? Do you expect the director to step onto the stage at every moment to assure you he has a hand in the play? It is certainly possible there is no director. The actors may be ad libbing their lines and have no theme or purpose. But it is hardly unreasonable to assert inductively, or infer deductively, that the director is there yet remaining in the background precisely because that is his role by nature.
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 neutrino. That is a big change in properties.
I am not familiar with the process you describe. I assume it occurs at a quantum level, it occurs within a certain range of elemental substance, and it serves a purpose without which life on this planet may be very different, if present at all. Perhaps you could explain how we know for certain whether this process occurs erratically in every case, and whether it does not behave accordingto predictable laws.