The universe is replete with organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws. You need look no farther than the front of your nose at any time. From both an inductive and deductive standpoint, the theory of intelligent design makes sense.
But you, too, must have some other theory to explain the presence of organized matter that behaves under predictable laws. What is it? Evolution? That works, too. There is nothing in the universe that cannot be explained by "natural" causes. Evolution is a legitimate theory, to be sure. But it is not the only one capable of explaining the data.
And if you live under the illusion that science, in order to be science, must omit any notion of God or the supernatural, then you adhere to a dogma of your own. An unscientific practice at best. Bigotry at worst.
Your proposed hypothesis was not a case for ID, it was an observation of the obvious status quo. Restate the hypothesis to support a tenet of ID, and propose a test.
From both an inductive and deductive standpoint, the theory of intelligent design makes sense.
You're talking logic and philosophy, but the subject is science.
And if you live under the illusion that science, in order to be science, must omit any notion of God or the supernatural
We are talking about the natural sciences. You know, as opposed to supernatural (ID). That pretty much frames the debate from the beginning. Or do you think they should be mixed? Do you think we should teach natural selection in church? Of course not, you only want your beliefs taught in schools as science, no reciprocity.
You seem awfully ignorant. Read some of Einstein's writings for instance. There are many famous, respected scientists who are deeply religious. However, science by definition does not address "God" or the "supernatural", at least as long as they are claimed to have traits and capabilities that transcend the physical world.
Science has not made, nor does it seem likely to make, any pronouncements about what existed before the Big Bang, or what caused the Universe to have its particular laws and composition. So, the explanations that "God created the Universe", "the Universe suddenly appeared randomly from nowhere", and "the Universe was created when an extra-universal garbage collector accidentally collected too much garbage and it imploded" are all equally plausible and likely from a strictly scientific standpoint. Science is willing to concede that the unknowable is the province of religion...it seems to be taking quite some time for religion to admit the counterpoint, that the knowable is the province of science.
I think ID should only be taught in science class if Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is given equal time, and the reason why is fully explained.