Detecting design or intent in nature

[Chas]

Is biological evolution known to have been created by intellect? No.
It therefore cannot belong to the set of things known to have been created by intellect.

But that is not the only thing wrong with your argument.

Some how in your warped thinking you have come to the conclusion that the set of systems containing the elements of replication, heritable traits, change and selection is the same as the set of things known to have been created by intellect.

Chas, they are not the same. When you finally figure that out, perhaps you can start making some sense.

No, you are not paying attention.

Your Heywood set includes biological evolution and all of your examples. However, the set of Heywood systems has multiple pairs of disjoint subsets.

There is the subset of members that contain replicating replicators vs. the subset that does not.

There is the subset of members that are known to have been created by intellect vs. the subset of members that are not known to have been created by intellect.

There is the subset of members that are biological vs. the subset of members that are not.

And so on.

Of course something that applies to all members of the Heywood set applies to all members of all subsets. But it is not valid to conclude that something that applies to the members of any on subset applies to all the members of the parent set.

To conclude that the members of one disjoint subset must share the characteristics of another disjoint subset is not valid, regardless of how many members are in each subset.

If you can't independently demonstrate that biological evolution was created by intellect, you can't place it in that subset just because all the other members of the Heywood set are in that subset. That is you assuming the conclusion.