Detecting design or intent in nature

[Heywood]

That's not an assumption, dumbass. It's what "other" means.

I know what "other" means retard. In your example you are assuming that mammals other than cats and mice exists and then you go on to conclude they exist.

And we do NOT have observations of one kind. We have observations of two groups: man-made evolutionary systems (by your definition, at least), and non-man-made systems. Of course, man-made ones are "implemented" by intellects, because men have intellects. But it's stupid to say that things not man-made are also most likely made by intellect.

I am not arguing that all evolutionary systems are man-made. If I were, that argument would easily be defeated by presenting an observation of the evolutionary system which produced man. Since man is an effect of it, man cannot be its cause. What you are doing is presenting an argument that I am not making then knocking it down. This is straw manning. I agree there is observational evidence to support the claim that evolutionary systems can be categorized into man made and not man made.

Instead of strawmanning how about you actually address the claim I am making. How about you address the claim that there is no observational evidence to suggest that evolutionary systems can be categorized into "intellect required" and "intellect not required"?

That doesn't mean God didn't make evolution, or make a universe whose properties lead naturally to evolution. It does, however, mean that your "evidence" is a category error, and is not usable in the way you are attempting to use it. Here, try it again:

A category error cannot possibly be true. It is possible all evolutionary systems require intellect, it is possible not all evolutionary systems require intellect. Both propositions are of the same category. A category error would be "all evolutionary systems are man made or all evolutionary systems do not require intellect". "Man made" and "intellect" are different categories.