That organized matter operating under predictable laws will be found.
Find some and get back to us. Come up with a specifically-stated hypothesis, set up a reproducible test, have it be successful and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal. If it survives, you have a decent hypothesis. Then you can work on building a general theory to explain it.
Nobody will take you seriously until that's done, because that's how the science game is played. But then you've already come up with the vague, ill-defined "theory," so you'll have to backpedal a bit to overcome that initial loss of credibility.
That organized matter operating under predictable laws will be found.
You just got through saying that a thoroughly hoc theory (one that can account for anything) is a good theory, and now this? Parading an arm waving generalization as a testable prediction, and a presupposition common to all scientific theories as the implication of a particular theory (ignoring for the moment that ID isn't a theory)?
Seriously. Are you purposely engaging in some sort of satire?