[Fester Chugabrew]

Why do you believe that organized matter behaving according to "predictable laws" is an intelligent result?

I consider these things to be the result and ongoing activity of an intelligent agent. I do not ascribe intelligence to the result, per se, as if matter and it's laws are intelligent agents in and of themselves.

My reasons for deducing intelligent input from the results are 1.) the ability for the results to manifest themselves to intelligent beings (communication of information), 2.) the ensuing characteristic of quantifiability, and 3.) the consistency demonstrated by both matter and its laws over a period of time extending throughout my experience as an observer.

One could just as easily argue that organized matter and predictable laws are the result of infinitely possible combinations of matter over an indefinite period of time without any intelligent agent whatsoever. I cannot answer that argument. It, too, can be used to explain everything. That does not make it a wholly unscientific argument or assumption. In fact it may prove handy for certain people.

[Dimensio]

I consider these things to be the result and ongoing activity of an intelligent agent.

And that's the source of the problem. You can't present a rational justification for asserting that this intelligent agent is the best explanation.

My reasons for deducing intelligent input from the results are 1.) the ability for the results to manifest themselves to intelligent beings (communication of information),

I don't follow the logic that the ability for an intelligent entity to observe an event is evidence that the event itself had an intelligent origin.

2.) the ensuing characteristic of quantifiability

Again, not a logical connection.

3.) the consistency demonstrated by both matter and its laws over a period of time extending throughout my experience as an observer.

You're restating your initial premise. Why is consistency amongst your observations evidence of an intelligent agent causing the events that you observe?

One could just as easily argue that organized matter and predictable laws are the result of infinitely possible combinations of matter over an indefinite period of time without any intelligent agent whatsoever. I cannot answer that argument. It, too, can be used to explain everything.

That is why neither your explanation nor your hypothetical "alternative" explanation are in any way, shape or form meaningful. If your explanation can be replaced by an equally explanatory one without any adjustments of evidence, then both explanations are fundamentally meaningless.

That does not make it a wholly unscientific argument or assumption.

Yes, it is, unless you dishonestly redefine science.