aR: 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.
I think you're being unfair to Fester and his rather elegant theory, "Stuff exists."
And, as I look around ... I see STUFF! Intelligently designed stuff, at that! Hey! Fester may be onto something! "Stuff exists" explains so much. It explains everything, in fact ... uh-oh ...
To say that matter is organized and acts according to predictable laws is to say more than "stuff exists." The ubiquity of intelligent design is such that, like the air you breathe, it goes unnoticed. It is considered natural only because you were born into it and have become accustomed to it.
At any rate, Intelligent Design is well-qualified to be called a "theory," because it explains the data, which, if it were without design, would be incomprehensible to reason and senses.