Detecting design or intent in nature

[Heywood]

Yes, but gossip is not a system designed to create change. But it does create change. No intellect designed human miscommunication. Chinese Whispers is designed to illustrate human miscommunication and it does.

There's no evidence that natural evolution is a system. Like changes through gossip, it happens because perfect is not possible. Once again. It's not a system, it's the natural consequence of the fact that DNA does not always replicate perfectly.

If evolution is not a system then what is it? It is not a force. Evolution doesn't cause particles to alter their movement.

If you want to call it a "process" I'm fine with that. In fact I like that better because a process achieves a particular end.

---

Using this thinking, a automobile would be undesigned because it originated as part of one unbroken chain of evolution occuring on earth.

If by automobile you mean a car that resulted from parts mutating, due to changes in environmental conditions, in each prior generation of models, and natural laws preserving those that allow a minimal threshold of beneficial function, and eliminating those that cause failure, then yes, it would be inappropriate to call the current product "designed by a generic intellect."

Esquilax's argument is that our intellect is the result of evolution and therefore any intellects we create are ultimately the result of evolution.

The problem with his thinking is he assumes that evolution came first and intellect second. This assumption could be justified if it turned out that evolutionary systems can come into existence without the need of intellects. However once we observe lots of evolutionary systems coming into existence and they all require intellects, we can no longer have any confidence in the assumption that evolutionary systems can come into existence without intellect.

The observations that evolutionary systems seem to require intellects to come into existence suggest that perhaps intellect came first.