Can someone debunk this

[The Grand Nudger]

Of course purpose and design are excluded a priori.  Most science, particularly when it comes to evolutionary science is done within the context of naturalism, which entails that only naturalistic explanations are entertained as possibilities.
 
Reason…  Intention…  Plan[ing]…  Decision(s)…  are all the product of mind and intelligence, not mere matter.  They do not and cannot, by the nature of the philosophical underpinnings that undergird the enterprise (i.e. evolutionary science), be included.  It’s the very reason Richard Dawkins has been quoted ad nauseum ad infinitum saying or writing the following:

We intentionally bred cattle for mass and docility.  We did this for the purpose of feeding ourselves.  This is artificial selection.  Purpose and design exists, neither modern synth nor naturalism excludes either.  The question is whether some, most, or all of evolution can be explained by artificial selection..if the question is purpose or design.  

Good luck, again.....and you're probably going to need more than a dictionary to demonstrate whatever it is you believe.  

Dawkins Wrote: … The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. … – River out of Eden (1995)

That's natural selection.  What's the problem?  In artificial selection there is a design, there is a purpose...it may be evil - bioweapons, or good....bioremediation.  We're neither blind, nor pitiless..nor indifferent.  

Dawkins Wrote: … Natural selection, 

 uh-huh...

See above...if you're talking about design and purpose you aren't talking about natural selection.  You're discussing artificial selection.

And we need not be limited to “artificial selection”, as if we’re merely talking about breeding dogs.  It is possible to recognize the marks of mind or intelligence through the detection of design and purpose itself.  Or one could look at the origin of intelligible information itself.  Do we have examples of intelligible information in the form of language or code that can be shown rather than assumed to originate from non-mind or non-intelligence?  What about the applicability of mathematics to the physical world?  After all, mathematics wasn’t invented by mankind.  Rather it was discovered, as something that already existed, irrespective of our awareness of it.  And now we’re able to use that very discovery to predict the existence of other things that cannot be detected without great effort.  Again, better explained by non-mind and non-intelligence?  Credulity is stretched beyond the breaking point if the answer is actually “Yes!”

What's limiting about artificial selection..and what is being excluded?  Artificial selection simply describes a form of evolution in which design and purpose are used to leverage biological mechanisms for an intended outcome.  What do you think happened?  Do you think that this was all magic'd into existence as is?  God played in the dirt and uttered a cantrip and here we are?  That god did this little trick in such as way as to fool everyone...all the way down to the genetic level?  That;s awfully roundabout and thorough.

As a side note, I have a list regarding kinds.  Are you a kind kind of person?