If you mean "intelligence" as necessarily originating from a personal source I can understand why you would propose this, although it is not necessarily "clear." If you mean "intelligence" as it relates to design, then I beg to differ.
Design could be stupid. Think Edsel.
I was hoping you would consider the question more seriously and expound a bit further than this. If anything, your example only bespeaks your personal bias against a human product that, regardless of its deficiencies, is another clear example where intelligence HAD to be exerted through a personal agent to achieve a desired result.
I was hoping you would consider the question more seriously and expound a bit further than this. If anything, your example only bespeaks your personal bias against a human product that, regardless of its deficiencies, is another clear example where intelligence HAD to be exerted through a personal agent to achieve a desired result.
The Edsel example was obviously too subtle for you. Design does not necessarily imply high intelligence. In fact, the ID case is harder to refute if you concede that most organisms are not particularly intelligently designed. The Manichaeans, for example, believed that the Earth was created by an imperfect and capricious junior deity. Elsie is pushing the idea that God created a perfect genome and Original Sin (by some molecular mechanism yet unknown) messed it up. And, gosh, if you claim there is order in living systems, but not particularly intelligently designed order, I'd have a tough time arguing with you.