"Intelligent design predicts and assumes organized matter performing specific functions. I reckon we could call it a coincidence of nature that atoms do not fly apart and we have an intelligible universe to explore with our intelligence, but that wouldn't be particularly scientific, would it?"
So show how it predicts verifiable behavior that cannot be predicted without and your on your way - then make you case to the scientific community so they can check your work.
I'd be happy for you to show that ID has scientific basis - the ID people that upset me are the ones who want it taught without such proof, as accepted by the scientific community.
Proof? All this time I have been saying the standards of science, unless pure math, do not involve "proof." Theories entail data that fits more consistently with the model. Every case where the elements retain ther specificity is evidence that may be inferred as pointing to intelligent design. In every case where we've known for certain that intelligent design has taken place, it entails organizing matter to perform specific functions. It also entails dynamic processes. For certain people to suggest that intelligent design MIGHT be responsible for said organization is innocuous to science in general. But it seems to have a way of tightening the threads on certain philosophical undergarments.