Detecting design or intent in nature

[Esquilax]

My idea of a generic intellect is essentially the same as a human intellect so I see no need to make the distinction you are asking me to make. If a human intellect can create evolutionary systems....without even attempting it as in the case of Chinese Whispers....what force of nature or obstacle exists that prevents another kind of intellect from doing the same? I know what your going to say....some mysterious force that we just haven't discovered yet....right?

No, you're missing my point, which is that your own argument prevents you from appealing to generic intellects at all. You haven't observed any intellect that hasn't originated as a part of the one, unbroken chain of evolution occurring on Earth, and earlier on, you were using a lack of observations to argue against evolutionary systems existing by means other than intelligence. You literally said to me earlier, that arguing for the existence of natural evolution contradicts the observations we've made, and you framed that as a rebuttal to me.

Well, guess what? The existence of generic intellects also contradicts the observations that we've made, as do your claims of a designer, since the only intellects we've ever observed have been products of evolutionary systems occurring here on Earth. When I pointed that out to you, you handwaved, in the process inverting your entire argument by pointing to our lack of observations of the universe as a reason to accept the existence of generic intellects occurring without an evolutionary system. So which is it, Heywood? Are observations absolutely required to come to conclusions, as you want them to be when arguing against me? Or is the lack of observations not only okay, but preferred, as you want it to be when defending your own arguments?

You can't hold everyone you disagree with to a set of standards, and then disregard them all in favor of positions you hold, dude.

The condition of being human is an artifact of our biology. The condition of being human is not an artifact of intellect. The distinction you are making is irrelevant and you are grasping at straws in an attempt to maintain a belief in something which has never ever been observed.

You know what else has never been observed? Intellects arising that are not the product, either directly or indirectly, of evolutionary systems. So what you're arguing for, based on observations, is that evolutionary systems arise via intellect, but based on observations it's equally true that we have no examples of of intellects arising without an evolutionary system as the source. You're arguing for a self refuting position in yet another way, as if all evolutionary systems are based in intellects, as you claim, then eventually you'd need to be positing the existence of an evolutionary system that was born of an intellect that didn't require one to come into being, contradicting your claim to only be working from observations. On the other hand, if you're willing to bear out your argument consistently, then eventually, by necessity, you'd need to find an original evolutionary system that did not require intelligence to exist, that arose naturally, in order to give rise to this chain of intellect-based evolutionary systems that you claim to observe.

Either way, your argument is fucked.

The truth is, you have no good reason whatsoever to believe that evolutionary systems can come into existence sans intellect. You believe it only as a matter of faith and not on some objective observation of reality.

So what's the answer to the above, Heywood? Do you believe in the existence of intellects that did not come about through evolutionary systems through faith? Or do you believe in naturally occurring evolutionary systems through faith? You have to pick one; your own argument demands it. It just so happens that doing so also breaks your argument, but then, that's a problem for you, and not me.

Because my position, as I've said multiple times, is that I don't know the origins of all evolutionary systems, so I also don't need to hide behind multiply contradictory arguments in order to make a case.