Creationist argument about DNA and information

[annnnoid]

In this case "natural" means that no agency is needed.

Sophistry is unimpressive.

…and so is ignorance. Insisting on ‘no agency’ is blatantly disingenuous. Quite obviously ‘something’ orients the activities of whatever occurs in nature. So far that ‘something’ is what we call the laws of physics (metaphorically…of course).

Do you call it something else?

 

[Daniel]

daniel, annnnoid,

1) Do you accept that offspring tend to resemble their parents but are not perfect copies?

2) Do you accept that any offspring that does manage to breed has at the least demonstrated suitable adaptation to its environment to be able to breed?

If you accept those two, the theory of evolution by natural selection follows.

A complete buffoon @ the beginning of time could have arrived @ this conclusion by simply observing two successive generations of his family and/or a family of squirrels.

So that's the 'theory', eh?

Are you gonna get around to posting the Scientific Theory of evolution @ some point?


Ya see, Actual 'Scientific Theories' are derived from Validated Scientific Hypotheses and explain..."The HOW" (Mechanisms/Process) explicitly.

1. Natural Selection is not a Mechanism. "Natural Selection" is a Concept and Concepts aren't Mechanisms, much like:

"Freedom" (Concept) didn't draw up the Battle Plans for the Revolutionary War.
"The Race for Space" (Concept) didn't construct the Apollo 11 Lunar Module.
The "Transition between Classical and Romantic Era's" (Concept) didn't write Beethoven's 9th.


William Provine, Cornell University: Professor evolutionary Biology.....

"Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. NATURAL SELECTION DOES NOTHING….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets."
Provine, W., The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, Re-issue 2001), pg. 199-200

"Natural selection does not shape an adaptation or cause a gene to spread over a population or really do anything at all. It is instead the result of specific causes: hereditary changes, developmental causes, ecological causes, and demography. Natural Selection is the result of these causes, not a cause that is by itself. It is not a mechanism."
Shermer, M., The Woodstock of Evolution (The World Summit on Evolution); Scientific American, 27 June 2005
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-woodstock-of-evolutio/


2. "evolution"...what's that?? What was Natural Selection 'supposedly' leading to before it Jacked 'YARD'?

No Validated Mechanism = No Scientific Theory. Simple, End of Story.


So to get back on Topic, can you Define Information...?


regards

 

[jimbob]

…and so is ignorance. Insisting on ‘no agency’ is blatantly disingenuous. Quite obviously ‘something’ orients the activities of whatever occurs in nature. So far that ‘something’ is what we call the laws of physics (metaphorically…of course).

Do you call it something else?

I suggest you look up the Weak Anthropic Principle

 

[jimbob]

A complete buffoon @ the beginning of time could have arrived @ this conclusion by simply observing two successive generations of his family and/or a family of squirrels.

So that's the 'theory', eh?

The very basic fundamentals, pretty much. If something replicates with errors within a finite environment, then the generations will tend to be better optimised for replication within that system.

There is a lot of clever maths and stats that can follow from that insight, given the specifics of how inheritance works for any particular system of reproduction, but that's the basic idea.

As Huxley said, "how extremely stupid not to have thought of it earlier".

It is so obvious in retrospect, which is why it is so elegant.

 

[annnnoid]

I suggest you look up the Weak Anthropic Principle

...and I suggest you actually address the argument.

How has that got the slightest thing to do with anything about whether or not the laws of physics are or are not somehow instantiated in whatever reality is?

Quite apart from being conceptually vague (and scientifically worthless)...it does nothing more than…once again…beg the question.

 

[Reality Check]

...
Provine, W., The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, Re-issue 2001), pg. 199-200

11 March 2016 Daniel: William Provine is a historian complaining about the language used about natural selection and the corruption of it by creationists.'

11 March 2016 Daniel: An irrelevant "without merit" Provine quote from a 2005 conference presentation!

2. "evolution"...what's that??

Irrelevant and total ignorance about evolution or maybe 4 March 2016 Daniel: It is a lie to state that the scientific theory of evolution does not exist since textbooks on TOE exist, etc.! is relevant.


Please quote as he has me on ignore.
regards

 

[Reality Check]

The very basic fundamentals, pretty much. If something replicates with errors within a finite environment, then the generations will tend to be better optimised for replication within that system.

We can even say that like "it was steam engine time", "it was facts and theory of evolution time in the 1850's" !

Creationists tend to forget some basic history of science. Speciation had been recognized well before Charles Darwin and the Origin of Species (1859) - his grandfather Erasmus Darwin was thinking about the origin of species in 1789 and explicitly in a poem published in 1803! The fossil record clearly showed even then that species vanished and appeared.
Alfred Russel Wallace independently came up with evolution through natural selection.

History of evolutionary thought

Naturalists began to focus on the variability of species; the emergence of paleontology with the concept of extinction further undermined static views of nature. In the early 19th century Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744 – 1829) proposed his theory of the transmutation of species, the first fully formed theory of evolution.

 

[turingtest]

Yup…that is a generalization. I don’t mind admitting it…

…but…admitting there are ‘areas of mystery’ is a massive understatement of the situation.

And yet..."areas of mystery" was your phrase, attributed to "credible scientists," presumable lending the characterization credibility (otherwise, why go to the trouble of pointing out the credibility of the scientists?)-

...Most credible scientists actually have no problem acknowledging areas of mystery. I can only wonder why you so frequently do...

...but when I use your words, and acknowledge what you thought I was refusing to, it's "a massive understatement." Those scientists not credible anymore? Now I'm wondering where those goalposts are gonna end up...

We don’t know what anything actually is. Not…

…anything. Period….as Perpetual Student quite helpfully confirmed just yesterday:




Nor do we know what is the explicit relationship between ANY of the laws of physics that we do use to describe and predict everything…and everything…

…nor does anyone effectively have the faintest clue as to how a ‘brain’ creates either a ‘you’ or a single one of these ‘laws of physics’…

…nor does anyone have the faintest idea what it actually means / is to know…well…anything (including comprehending this very word!).

Thus…your ‘area of mystery’ is ultimately every moment and detail of you and everything around you.

…but somehow…this becomes merely a ‘gap’…?!?!?!? As useful an example of the perils of reductionist materialism as is likely to appear …this morning anyway.

Ah, ok...back to massive overstatements like "we don't know what anything actually is," yada yada. Is there any room in your philosophy at all for ideas that aren't absolutes?

 

[turingtest]

Well that would depend on what your "Whole Thing" specifically entails.

Actually, it would depend more on what annnnoid's (or your) "whole thing" entails; lay it out for me there, Daniel- your "validated mechanism" for goddidit.

Furthermore, it's not a Multiple Choice Question. The Cause for each case is either: Nature (Unguided) or Intelligent Design/GOD (Guided). If I have 2 Choices (A True Dichotomy) and I Rule One Completely Out, then based on the Law of Ground Squirrel Level Common Sense...what's "The Cause"? Voila

You can rule out whatever you like- even saying "voila!" won't actually make the alternative disappear or your magic real.

Are you saying, that I went through this process and filed the appropriate paperwork...

http://www.uspto.gov/trademark/trademark-timelines/trademark-application-and-post-registration-process-timelines

??

When did I do this? Does your Blind Conjecture Acumen/Powers extend to other genre's?? If so let's TEST it, what's my favorite color?

Yeah, Daniel...that's what I'm saying, uh huh

Or are you conjuring then floating nonsensical flailing Appeals to Ridicule (Fallacy) in lieu of substantive positions/arguments to somehow cloak/divert away from the afore mentioned 'lack of' substantive arguments ?

There ya go! You got it, ridicule it was! I thought about using something like an "Anna Nicole/Pol Pot" jab (something I'm sure you would never stoop to), but decided to keep it simple. Glad I found something simple enough for you to (finally) get.
Tough ol' world, Daniel- sometimes you reap what you sow, eh?

That's Correct. However, Materialism/Realism is a 'religion'. Stop over @ the QM thread and I'll show you "WHY".

Do you, by chance, have a cogent/concise/coherent definition of "Information", so we can get back to the topic?

regards

Sure. Information is data; it can be transmitted, as code or clear, to be received, but it can also be inherent to be simply gathered. I used this example earlier, but...when the Hurricane Hunters go out and measure specifics about storms like wind speeds, central pressures, and tracks, these bits of data are the same before and after being gathered by the guys in the planes- there's nothing magical about the act of transmission of the data that suddenly makes it "information" where it wasn't before.

I realize this will just be another occasion for yet another of your random-caps and colorized "nuh-uh, information is only ever ever ever sourced by Intelligent Agency!" posts; that's fine, I've come to expect no less (or more) from you. It's actually kind of funny at this point- you really don't seem to see the circle you've trapped yourself in, defining your evidence for your conclusion as only what it needs to be to reach that conclusion. Funny in a meta way, that is- your posts are full of information by your definition, just not sending the message you mean to.

regards...

 

[annnnoid]

And yet..."areas of mystery" was your phrase, attributed to "credible scientists," presumable lending the characterization credibility (otherwise, why go to the trouble of pointing out the credibility of the scientists?)-

...but when I use your words, and acknowledge what you thought I was refusing to, it's "a massive understatement." Those scientists not credible anymore? Now I'm wondering where those goalposts are gonna end up...


Ah, ok...back to massive overstatements like "we don't know what anything actually is," yada yada. Is there any room in your philosophy at all for ideas that aren't absolutes?

Massive overstatements? Maybe you could explain how that is a massive overstatment when no one actually does know what anything actually is (did you not read that quote from Perpetual Student?). Not to mention...that our interpretations of what we do know are nothing more than models...and no one has any definitive idea how we create them in the first place.

...and if you are going to take issue with a single one of these claims I'm afraid you're gonna have to do a bit better than ..." ....waaaaa I don't like that!"

It is what it is dude. Sure there are lots of grey areas. Just about everything that most folks are dealing with most of the time is grey areas. But in the big-picture…which is what is going on at this particular thread…we’re not talking about the grey areas.

When it comes to the big picture we have the kind of situation described by Perpetual Student.

…but if you’re up for it you can give this one a try: Many of you somehow find it possible to argue that nothing about reality implicates intelligence…while at the very same time insisting that something (the laws of physics) that could not be created WITHOUT intelligence (according to any conventional paradigm) is effectively instantiated in this very same reality.

So what’s your position when it comes to ‘the laws of physics’. Are they discovered…or is it all just a great big coincidence? So far ‘discovered’ seems to be the consensus amongst the skeptic hoard. Actually, many go further and actually insist they occur in / as reality and that there is evidence to confirm this.

 

[RussDill]

I realize this will just be another occasion for yet another of your random-caps and colorized "nuh-uh, information is only ever ever ever sourced by Intelligent Agency!" posts; that's fine, I've come to expect no less (or more) from you. It's actually kind of funny at this point- you really don't seem to see the circle you've trapped yourself in, defining your evidence for your conclusion as only what it needs to be to reach that conclusion. Funny in a meta way, that is- your posts are full of information by your definition, just not sending the message you mean to.

No, this is when he switches to the creationist definitions of three types of information. Essentially, information with high entropy, information with low entropy, and information that could have only of been created by an intelligent agent. A test can be made that distinguishes between most types of information with high entropy and low entropy, although there are many cases where high entropy information actually is low entropy information in disguise.

How can you tell if information was created by an intelligent agent, easy, ask a creationist:

They will attempt to tell you, but all of their definitions just end up being circular.

ETA: The links:

Daniel explaining the three types of complexity: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11162241&postcount=467

Daniel categorizing information within DNA as one of the three types of information complexity above: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11149901&postcount=87

 

[Daniel]

Actually, it would depend more on what annnnoid's (or your) "whole thing" entails; lay it out for me there, Daniel- your "validated mechanism" for goddidit.

THANKS for confirming what we already knew. Errr...How can I give you a Mechanism: "The HOW", for a Forever Past Unobserved Event without a Time Machine, pray tell?

Define Independent Variables....?

We only know: "The What/Is", kinda Scientific Law like. Did you read where I said, "Furthermore, it's not a Multiple Choice Question. The Cause for each case is either: Nature (Unguided) or Intelligent Design/GOD (Guided). If I have 2 Choices (A True Dichotomy) and I Rule One Completely Out, then based on the Law of Ground Squirrel Level Common Sense...what's "The Cause"? Voila


Your Argument is Tantamount to (You're Sally)...

Harry: "Look @ those amazing Pyramids??"

Sally: "How were they built??"

Harry: "I have No Idea".

Sally: "Therefore, the Wind/Waves/and Erosion built them!!"

Sure. Information is data;

Ahhh, No; Factually Incorrect...

"Data" and "Information" are NOT equals sir. e.g.,

Data: aaaa1a2a2a1a from Detector 1 and bbbb1b2b2b2b from Detector 2... means what...?
You have no idea because we didn't "AGREE" beforehand on the convention/medium/and meaning of what these meant.

Liberate the Information from this 'Data'...

eyfmv sbekfl ehaftjf imyayeod fasfstllgjda kolvn evt4s3refd 42ofdwr pgjdfner yerithdnvkdkg mdskd. ???

It only becomes "Information" then "Knowledge" (The Consequent) AFTER we AGREED beforehand or set up in ADVANCE the convention, medium, and meaning. This is only ever ever ever accomplished by Intelligent Agency, without Exception!

What would have happened if Paul Revere never met (agreed on meaning/medium/convention) with the Patriots and sent "Signals"---"DATA" (1 Light or 2 Lights) from the Old North Church?? Ahh, not much right? Moreover, was it the Lights (medium) that coordinated the meeting?

Information is Semiotic, it's not a Physical Entity or a part of the Medium of Conveyance. Photons from Paul Revere's Lamps weren't physically carrying Information...the Lights were just the medium used to signal the Intelligent Agents; who then assigned the Pre-Arranged meaning.... (Information) Now Exists. It is only then, they " know "... "which-path"

...it can be transmitted, as code or clear, to be received, but it can also be inherent to be simply gathered. I used this example earlier, but...when the Hurricane Hunters go out and measure specifics about storms like wind speeds, central pressures, and tracks, these bits of data are the same before and after being gathered by the guys in the planes- there's nothing magical about the act of transmission of the data that suddenly makes it "information" where it wasn't before.

What INFORMATION isn't...
Your "Interpretation" of the physical effects or consequences of the existence of inanimate objects is not "Information" sir. When I put my hand under running water, the water's not communicating to me that it's "WET" or that it's "cold' or 'hot'. When a tree branch falls in the woods, the sound waves aren't telling me "I've fallen, and I can't get up".

I realize this will just be another occasion for yet another of your random-caps and colorized "nuh-uh, information is only ever ever ever sourced by Intelligent Agency!" posts; that's fine, I've come to expect no less (or more) from you. It's actually kind of funny at this point-

Well they say; Ignorance is Bliss.

...you actually don't seem to see the circle you've trapped yourself in, defining your evidence for your conclusion as only what it needs to be to reach that conclusion.

Really?? Why don't you provide a for instance...? Ya know, to actually SUPPORT your claims.


regards

 

[turingtest]

Massive overstatements? Maybe you could explain how that is a massive overstatment when no one actually does know what anything actually is (did you not read that quote from Perpetual Student?). Not to mention...that our interpretations of what we do know are nothing more than models...and no one has any definitive idea how we create them in the first place.

...and if you are going to take issue with a single one of these claims I'm afraid you're gonna have to do a bit better than ..." ....waaaaa I don't like that!"

It is what it is dude. Sure there are lots of grey areas. Just about everything that most folks are dealing with most of the time is grey areas. But in the big-picture…which is what is going on at this particular thread…we’re not talking about the grey areas.

When it comes to the big picture we have the kind of situation described by Perpetual Student.

…but if you’re up for it you can give this one a try: Many of you somehow find it possible to argue that nothing about reality implicates intelligence…while at the very same time insisting that something (the laws of physics) that could not be created WITHOUT intelligence (according to any conventional paradigm) is effectively instantiated in this very same reality.

So what’s your position when it comes to ‘the laws of physics’. Are they discovered…or is it all just a great big coincidence? So far ‘discovered’ seems to be the consensus amongst the skeptic hoard. Actually, many go further and actually insist they occur in / as reality and that there is evidence to confirm this.

(Shrug) Discovered, by an intelligence that (finally) fathoms it (laws of physics, that is); that doesn't necessarily implicate an intelligence behind it.

Look, I get it (dude)- I'm an old 70's hippy, loved to stay up late at night with my buds and their buds (if you get what I mean), and blue-sky the hours away- "how do we know what we know, man? And if we don't even know that, how do we know anything? Wow, maybe we're just brains in a jar sharing dreams, stealing each other's sleep! Ever think of that, man????" And so forth...been there, done that, got the Pink Floyd t-shirt to show it. Some of us grow up, and finally we find out, yup...it really is just what it is, and probably not much more.

 

[hecd2]

…but if you’re up for it you can give this one a try: Many of you somehow find it possible to argue that nothing about reality implicates intelligence…while at the very same time insisting that something (the laws of physics) that could not be created WITHOUT intelligence (according to any conventional paradigm) is effectively instantiated in this very same reality.

So what’s your position when it comes to ‘the laws of physics’. Are they discovered…or is it all just a great big coincidence? So far ‘discovered’ seems to be the consensus amongst the skeptic hoard. Actually, many go further and actually insist they occur in / as reality and that there is evidence to confirm this.

Equivocating between "what is" described as "the laws of physics" and our description of it described as "the laws of physics". Because our description could not be created without intelligence you claim the world as it is could not be so created. Equivocation - simple as that.

 

[turingtest]

THANKS for confirming what we already knew. Errr...How can I give you a Mechanism: "The HOW", for a Forever Past Unobserved Event without a Time Machine, pray tell?

...
No Validated Mechanism = No Scientific Theory. Simple, End of Story.
...

Great; simple, end of story, I don't need to bother with the rest of your silliness (which really just amounted to a QED for my expectation anyway- thanks for that, by the way).

regards

 

[jonesdave116]

Tadpole finds itself in exactly the right place to be. Grows into a frog. Wow, this little puddle/ pond etc. must have been made just for me. Hallelujah! Shed loads of tadpoles don't find themselves in the right place. Never turn into frogs. Never get to ask the question: "Wow, how come this place is perfectly suited for us?"
◊◊◊◊ happens.

 

[marplots]

Tadpole finds itself in exactly the right place to be. Grows into a frog. Wow, this little puddle/ pond etc. must have been made just for me. Hallelujah! Shed loads of tadpoles don't find themselves in the right place. Never turn into frogs. Never get to ask the question: "Wow, how come this place is perfectly suited for us?"
◊◊◊◊ happens.

I always liked the notion that we are designed for the ponds we find ourselves in. If the earth were all desert, I'd be a scorpion.

 

[Shalamar]

THANKS for confirming what we already knew. Errr...How can I give you a Mechanism: "The HOW", for a Forever Past Unobserved Event without a Time Machine, pray tell?

Define Independent Variables....?

We only know: "The What/Is", kinda Scientific Law like. Did you read where I said, "Furthermore, it's not a Multiple Choice Question. The Cause for each case is either: Nature (Unguided) or Intelligent Design/GOD (Guided). If I have 2 Choices (A True Dichotomy) and I Rule One Completely Out, then based on the Law of Ground Squirrel Level Common Sense...what's "The Cause"? Voila


Your Argument is Tantamount to (You're Sally)...

Harry: "Look @ those amazing Pyramids??"

Sally: "How were they built??"

Harry: "I have No Idea".

Sally: "Therefore, the Wind/Waves/and Erosion built them!!"

Your Argument is Tantamount to (You're Daniel, of course)...

Harry: "Look @ those amazing Pyramids??"

Daniel: "How were they built??"

Harry: "I have No Idea".

Daniel: GOD MUST HAVE DONE IT, AND IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE STUPID!

Ahhh, No; Factually Incorrect...

"Data" and "Information" are NOT equals sir. e.g.,

Data: aaaa1a2a2a1a from Detector 1 and bbbb1b2b2b2b from Detector 2... means what...?
You have no idea because we didn't "AGREE" beforehand on the convention/medium/and meaning of what these meant.

Liberate the Information from this 'Data'...

eyfmv sbekfl ehaftjf imyayeod fasfstllgjda kolvn evt4s3refd 42ofdwr pgjdfner yerithdnvkdkg mdskd. ???\

It's been pointed out to you. Because you ignore it, doesn't mean it's not there.

It only becomes "Information" then "Knowledge" (The Consequent) AFTER we AGREED beforehand or set up in ADVANCE the convention, medium, and meaning. This is only ever ever ever accomplished by Intelligent Agency, without Exception!

Argument by Incredulity.

What would have happened if Paul Revere never met (agreed on meaning/medium/convention) with the Patriots and sent "Signals"---"DATA" (1 Light or 2 Lights) from the Old North Church?? Ahh, not much right? Moreover, was it the Lights (medium) that coordinated the meeting?

Information is Semiotic, it's not a Physical Entity or a part of the Medium of Conveyance. Photons from Paul Revere's Lamps weren't physically carrying Information...the Lights were just the medium used to signal the Intelligent Agents; who then assigned the Pre-Arranged meaning.... (Information) Now Exists. It is only then, they " know "... "which-path"

No.

What INFORMATION isn't...
Your "Interpretation" of the physical effects or consequences of the existence of inanimate objects is not "Information" sir. When I put my hand under running water, the water's not communicating to me that it's "WET" or that it's "cold' or 'hot'. When a tree branch falls in the woods, the sound waves aren't telling me "I've fallen, and I can't get up".

Argument by Ignorance.

Well they say; Ignorance is Bliss.

By that claim, you are the happiest person I know.

Really?? Why don't you provide a for instance...? Ya know, to actually SUPPORT your claims.


regards

Supportive information has been given. So, now you are lying.

 

[annnnoid]

(Shrug) Discovered, by an intelligence that (finally) fathoms it (laws of physics, that is); that doesn't necessarily implicate an intelligence behind it.

Look, I get it (dude)- I'm an old 70's hippy, loved to stay up late at night with my buds and their buds (if you get what I mean), and blue-sky the hours away- "how do we know what we know, man? And if we don't even know that, how do we know anything? Wow, maybe we're just brains in a jar sharing dreams, stealing each other's sleep! Ever think of that, man????" And so forth...been there, done that, got the Pink Floyd t-shirt to show it. Some of us grow up, and finally we find out, yup...it really is just what it is, and probably not much more.

…all good. But in the later decades of the 20th century the closest we got to ‘artificial life’ was cloning sheep. These days stuff is way further along. We’ve got neuroscientists digging into brains, physicists digging into places their brains can’t even understand anymore, computer scientists trying to program a human being on a chip, and lawyers literally trying to decide when a ‘computer’ becomes an autonomous sentient entity (cause we simply haven’t learned how to define ‘human being’ yet).

Questions are being asked and “I don’t know” won’t get you in the door anymore. ‘It is what it is’ certainly works for a lot of stuff…which is a good thing cause that’s as much as most anyone can be expected to come up with most of the time. But there are area’s where more has to be put on the table, so answering these questions becomes necessary.

Equivocating between "what is" described as "the laws of physics" and our description of it described as "the laws of physics". Because our description could not be created without intelligence you claim the world as it is could not be so created. Equivocation - simple as that.

I rather doubt that I’m the only one who might have difficulty parsing that first sentence.

…and I’m not claiming anything of the sort. I’m simply pointing out the facts as they seem to occur. Some of which include the varieties of reasoning that generate the facts. One of the facts is that intelligence (and only intelligence…whatever that even is) creates stuff as complex as ‘laws of physics’. Another fact is that ‘laws of physics’ actually seem to somehow be instantiated in whatever reality is.

…meaning…reality shows all-but-indisputable signs of intelligence. What that means and how anyone individually responds to it is another matter entirely.

 

[hecd2]

I rather doubt that I’m the only one who might have difficulty parsing that first sentence.

…and I’m not claiming anything of the sort. I’m simply pointing out the facts as they seem to occur. Some of which include the varieties of reasoning that generate the facts. One of the facts is that intelligence (and only intelligence…whatever that even is) creates stuff as complex as ‘laws of physics’. Another fact is that ‘laws of physics’ actually seem to somehow be instantiated in whatever reality is.

OK, here's another way of stating it: The proposition that nature-as-it-is requires intelligence to create it does not follow from the premise that we use intelligence to describe it. Using the term "laws of physics" to mean both the way nature behaves, and our description of how nature behaves is an equivocation - they are not the same thing. Simple as that.

…meaning…reality shows all-but-indisputable signs of intelligence. What that means and how anyone individually responds to it is another matter entirely.

All-but-indisputable? Not INDISPUTABLE this time? Well I dispute it. The evidence seems to support the idea that intelligence is an emergent property of nature, not its cause.