Rather than suggesting that I am making an error in thinking in a "reductionistic" fashion perhaps you should give the issues a more thorough examination than the simple binary classification you use to dismiss one of the examples I have given.
(And don't knock reductionism - it is one of the reasons that human creativity can do what evolution cannot, as shown in the second example I gave).
Instead of simplistically classifying all examples as "intelligence" or "non-intelligent forces" we can try a three way classification (although we should recofgnise that these are pints on a continuum).
1) The direct work of human intelligence
2) Humans employing non-intelligent forces to do the actual work
3) Non-intelligent forces operating on their own.
Now let us be clear that in the second class the non-intelligent forces are producing the actual design (or whatever the object of the exercise is). This is clearly distinct from the first class - and it is a distinction you are ignorning..
Now Thompson's experiment was a case of the second class, and it produced results vey different from direct human design - confirming that the distinction is important. What is more it directly contradicts your assertion that the experiment supports the idea that human intelligence and evolution produce similar results - it could only do that if it had produced something that was like a human design.
So your assertionis based on a simplistic binary classification which lumps together every case where humans are involved without considering the nature of that involvement and on ignoring the actual results.
I remind you of the proverb concerning glass houses and stones.