And that is why the presence of organized matter that behaves according to laws, when attributed to an intelligent agent, is not a wholly wild, or untenable, or unscientific idea. Nor is the idea that an intelligent designer does not always attend directly to the product he/she/it designs. Nor is the idea that evidence of a person or phenomenon can be indirect.
I don't know what Behe et al are trying to do with this intelligent design schtick. If they are attempting to replace atheistic science they are wrong-headed. Atheistic science is somewhat reasonable and deserves a hearing in the academic marketplace. If they are attempting to demonstrate that intelligent design is a reasonable way of viewing the universe either inductively or deductively, well, DUH!
You keep aping this phrase as being evidence in support of any intelligent designer, I've noticed.
It is very odd. It strikes me as being akin to the "Gay Jeans Day" that I experience in college, whereby the local gay and lesbian group would ask everyone to wear jeans on a certain day if they supported special rights for gays. They knew full well that on any given day, the vast majority of students wore jeans, and that there was no causal connection between the wearing of jeans and their plea.
Likewise, here, the universe exhibits organized matter and regular laws. (Although this is arguable, per Herr Heisenberg). Those features are wholly unconnected to whether the universe was created by a god with those features or arose through means other than divine creation but possessing those features. There is no causal connection between them and the genesis, so to speak, of the universe. They just are.
Don't do "gay jean" science.