Okay, but the analogy is still too flawed. A more correct version in my mind would be draw poker, but that requires a mind.
Me: I could easily create a program that would play draw poker - no one would say the program had a mind.
You: A mind created the program.
Me: Suppose instead I create a simulation in which there is a breeding population of genetic programs. They are crossed randomly but selected by a draw poker fitness function. Based on my knowledge of other work in the genetic programming arena, some very good draw poker playing programs will emerge.
You: A mind created the simulation.
True. Any time I see a computer program I infer that a mind created it. But there is a difference between the simulation program and the process which it carries out. It is the latter which is the analog for biological evolution and which is being carried out mechanically. I consider this pretty strong evidence pointing to the plausibility of the naturalness of biological evolution. No doubt you disagree.