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.
Then you've already had it falsified. The fossil record shows changes, and we have observed population adaptation to the environment through genetic mutation over generations. Things do not remain the same.
Now you could say that natural selection is one of your designed predictable laws, and that everything follows that. However, in doing so you would be admitting that the theory of evolution is valid. Your argument would be faith instead of science, but science would also not be able to disprove it.
free to enumerate those instances where science can take place without the presence of either intelligence, design,
Now you're going off again to attack science in general. Why do you attack that which you so desperately want to be a part of, but can't be? The real definition of "sour grapes."