All you've done is present a tautology. The words "is due to" does not define a cause. One could just as easily substitute the word "is."
The presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws is due to the ongoing activity of an almighty, omnipresent, intelligent agent as demonstrated by the ubiquitous presence of observable data communicated to intelligent agents outside of the same, without which the practice of science would be impossible.
The most convincing argument against this theory would be the absence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws. Such evidence has been small in forthcoming, although black holes may be a sign that the absence of organized matter exists.
Whatever the wording, the statement puts forth a cause. Yours doesn't.
The presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws is due to the ongoing activity of an almighty, omnipresent, intelligent agent
Leaving off the editorial piece, that's the statement I was looking for. You have now put forth a cause rather than just making a general obvious statement. Your nascent theory now has a point to it.
Now set up non-rediculous criteria for falsifiability, have your theory make some predictions, set up some hypotheses within that theory (like a specific instance of Behe's irreducible complexity), reproducibly test those hypotheses and publish. Then we'll talk.
But given the thrashing that Behe's gotten, you might not want to go down that road.