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.
Your own editorializing aside, one criteria is that the organized matter will retain its organization from moment to moment, age to age. That is to say, the elements will continue to function in a predictable fashion, much as it is when man designs a machine it is intended to function consistently according to the purpose for which it was designed. The criteria that would falsify intelligent design entails matter that changes unpredictably from one form to another, or laws that act arbitrarily. Again, little evidence of that has been forthcoming since the beginning of science.
You are, of course, free to enumerate those instances where science can take place without the presence of either intelligence, design, or some combination of the two; or those instances where either can exist without an intelligent agent. Be sure to set up testable hypotheses to make your point, or it won't be science.