It's clear you don't a clue what "self-organizing" means.
Consider a famous example. Several million people live in Manhattan. Almost everyone there is well fed. How does that happen? Who designed the system that feeds Manhattan?
The answer is nobody. Individuals do various small tasks (for money) that in aggregate produce an astounding result - New York gets fed, day after day. Nobody understands how it happens - no single person or even small group of people understands where the food comes from, or how it is transported, or how it is distributed. Yet New York gets fed.
The complex "system" that feeds New York was never designed - it evolved over time, and continues to evolve as conditions change. Despite its enormous complexity, no one ever sat down and said "Let's figure out how to feed New York". And no one is monitoring the entire system today to figure out exactly what changes need to be made.
It's true that the individuals involved are intelligent, but their intelligence is only applied to the limited part that they play in the overall system. The system is self-organizing. Those people in the system have signals (the free-market) that tell them whether the small part they are doing is appropriate or not. The combination of individuals doing their small, simple parts and a signaling system that tells them if those parts are good yields a system as complex as any organism, with no one designing it.
I have to ask - do creationists feel compelled to discuss things they don't understand? Wouldn't you feel better if you did a little research on something like self-organizing systems before you showed that you didn't know what you were talking about? I'm just asking...
I can understand your example, but it is strained if meant to show that self-organization can account for all of the intelligent design so evident in the universe. Consciousness of the overall program is not necessary for intelligent design to manifest itself, or for self-organization to take place. I would not ascribe consciousness to genetic material, but all the evidence points to processes, information, and communication that cannot take place without both intelligence and design.
There's a word for people who believe that economies must be intelligently designed in order to be successful. We call these people Communists.
Also, there's a word for people, such as Phillip Johnson & his Discovery Institute bretheren, who believe that there is no objective basis for morality: We call these people postmodernists.
Flawed premises sure can make for some strange bedfellows, eh wot? :-)
(No, I'm not calling creationists commies. But the similarity of their thinking about biology to how Communists view economics is spooky. I am calling them postmodernists.)
Adam Smith designed the system. And Darwin was influenced by Smith in conceptualizing evolution. Odd that the father of conservative economics is so reviled by so-called conservatives when his ideas are applied in another area.