[Fester Chugabrew]

This does not explain why particle matter should never disintegrate into chaos if your unique version of "intelligent design" is true.

Intelligent design is neither defined nor created by myself individually. It is an objective process and result paradigm that holds sway in the most basic pursuit of science. As I said, it is the nature of intelligent design to organize matter. In cases where matter can be shown not to have tangible, purposeful, cause and effect properties, there intelligent design (or its effects) may be called into question.

As for falsification, it is of limited use in science and should by no means serve as a benchmark as to what is or is not scientific. Of course there are some who adopt the philosophy of Falsification-ism for themselves, and as such the theory of intelligent design appears unfalsifiable. But it stands to reason as a rule that the best sign of the absence of intelligent design is chaos because it is the nature of intelligent design to arrange matter for specific causes.

[Dimensio]

Intelligent design is neither defined nor created by myself individually.

Incorrect. "Intelligent Design" claimed (incorrectly) as a scientific theory was authored by Michael Behe. Your definition of "Intelligent Design" varies significantly from Behe's.

It is an objective process and result paradigm that holds sway in the most basic pursuit of science.

This statement has no real meaning.

As I said, it is the nature of intelligent design to organize matter.

This still does not explain why particle matter disintegrating into chaos would falsify what you call "intelligent design". You have still offered absolutely no justification for what you claim is your falsificiation criteria.

In cases where matter can be shown not to have tangible, purposeful, cause and effect properties, there intelligent design (or its effects) may be called into question.

Your unsubstantiated assertion provides no reason for why particle matter should not disintegrate into chaos if what you call "intelligent design" is true.

As for falsification, it is of limited use in science and should by no means serve as a benchmark as to what is or is not scientific.

Not liking the requirements of science will not alter the requirements of science. If there is no means to objectively test your claims, then your claims are worthless.

But it stands to reason as a rule that the best sign of the absence of intelligent design is chaos because it is the nature of intelligent design to arrange matter for specific causes.

This still does not explain why chaos would demonstrate that intelligent design is false. If you cannot explain this, then your claim that chaos is a falsification criteria is a lie.