Maybe you aren't communicating your thoughts clearly. You seem to be saying that the mere existence of physical laws is sufficient evidence for an intelligence behind them.
I see no reason why one would think that, and you haven't made a coherent case for it - seeming to conflate discovery of something with the thing itself.
You are coming up with increasingly convoluted ideas when the reality is simple:
Natural selection is a logical consequence of there being finite resources for life on this planet at any one time. The fact that heredity is imperfect provides a source of variation. Evolution is a logical inevitability given these facts alone.
Arguing the issue of ‘intelligence’ is a strawman.
Quite obviously a horse could not generate the laws of physics. Nor could a cockroach, or an amoeba, or a dolphin, or a fig tree, or a donut. The list could go on for eternity and no one (no one anywhere anyhow) would have any difficulty filling it with things that could in no way shape or form be expected to come within light years of being able to comprehend / generate ‘laws of physics’.
Meaning…that the word ‘intelligence’ has a very robustly defined normative definition. You could easily fill one side of the list with a million entries. Only one is obvious on the other. A human being. The difference between the two sides is one word: intelligence (or degree thereof).
IOW…no (or insufficient) intelligence…no laws of physics.
If ‘conditional’ intelligence (normative) is a prerequisite to merely discover the reduced laws of physics (which is what we do…reduced simply because we discover models, approximations, representations, etc.), then ‘something’ with the capacity to actually generate ‘the thing in itself’ (whatever the laws of physics actually are modeled after) must have an equivalently greater intelligence. IOW...not just intelligence as we struggle to comprehend / define it...but the instantiation of intelligence! The 'real' meaning of it.
IOW…intelligence (whatever we mean by it) is explicitly (but not exclusively) associated with the activity we refer to as modeling / comprehending laws of physics. If the laws of physics are, in fact, instantiated in reality…then it is evidence that intelligence is as well.
So…all we can manage is a normative relationship between intelligence and the laws of physics. Nothing else is possible, irrespective of the science.
What is argued by others here…is that because all we can manage is a normative relationship, that relationship is sufficiently flawed to dismiss the whole definition.
…meaning…that it is NOT reasonable to explicitly conclude that intelligence is required to generate / comprehend laws of physics.
Find me anyone who would agree with that!
Even then…the argument falters when we establish the dimensions of what we are dealing with. We aren’t just talking about discovering comprehending the laws of physics, we are talking about something that can create / govern them (assuming they are, in fact, instantiated in reality).
Were they created? Don’t know of course…but if they do, in fact, exist…they, by definition, implicate an intelligence of vast proportions. If for no other reason than that…however conditional or qualified our definition of intelligence… intelligence is still unequivocally associated with the complexity and comprehension that inevitably occur anywhere even remotely in the range of laws-of-physics (like I said…you could create a list of a billion entries that could not even begin to comprehend / generate a law of physics…and one that could; the difference between the two would be one word: intelligence).
…in fact…whenever we see intellectual achievement (intelligence) of such dimensions we don’t just refer to it as intelligence, we refer to it is hyper-intelligence. Genius. Savant. We actually run out of words to represent how intelligent such intelligence actually is. Just for example...what has the word 'Einstein' become a cliche for: Extraordinary intelligence!
…we drift into the realm of the super-intelligent. Which, by any measure, would immediately describe something with the capacity to not just design a carbon molecule, but create / govern the laws that decide what it will do.
The next question is: What evidence is there that the laws of physics actually are instantiated in reality?
That evidence is far more explicit and conclusive and has been argued by no end of skeptics themselves on these very threads.
Thus it is quite reasonable to conclude that some manner of ‘laws of physics’ are, in fact, instantiated in reality. We just have no idea what or how.
Since it is reasonable to conclude that ‘laws of physics’ are an explicit function of intelligence (according to every normative paradigm that you, me, and everyone practices)…and it is reasonable to conclude that ‘laws of physics’ are instantiated in reality (as just about every skeptic argues in some way shape or form)…then it is therefore reasonable to conclude that some manner of intelligence is also instantiated in reality.
