Richard Dawkin's big blunder

[Esquilax]

This is a good point on your part. Now I have asserted that every time one sees an evolutionary system whose inception is known to be the result of an intellect(without ever observing an evolutionary system whose inception is known to have resulted without the involvement of an intellect)...it increases the likelihood that all evolutionary systems require an intellect. I do recognize that the probability that all observed evolutionary systems require an intellect can never exceed the probability of the existence of the creating intellect in the first place. This is obvious.

However, If I conclude that evolutionary systems seem to require an intellect to exist, that gives me reason to believe the probability of an intellect capable of creating the evolutionary system which created us is fairly high.

So your entire position is an argument from ignorance, the basis of which being that we don't yet know the origin of an evolutionary system which began before recorded history was even possible? Seriously?

And, again... I really hate having to repeat this point, but no, the probability that all evolutionary systems are intelligently designed does not increase the more intelligently designed systems you find, because you're working with a selection pool of unknown capacity. Seriously, I need you to retain this information, because, you know, how probabilities work is an important thing to know if you're going to keep discussing probabilities like this.