NoNukes already provided the answer. I'll just add that if it were really true that archaeologists seek "the effect of intelligent tool use" it would mean they're able to distinguish it from "unintelligent tool use," whatever that is. But of course that's not what they do. They seek signs of what people do, intelligent or not, from coprolites, ancient footpaths and campfires to spearheads, buildings, housewares and artwork.
To archaeologists, artifacts are things made or used by people.
Detecting this manufacture is often easy, but detecting use is sometimes impossible.
We study tools from archaeological sites and ethnographic settings where these tools are still in use in order to learn their characteristics; we learn to replicate those tools, and we study rocks and other materials from natural occurrences such as stream beds. From this we can come up with general rules that cover most situations. For example, stone tools almost always have bifacial flaking.
But what is difficult is the pretty rock that was brought back and used for a door stop or paperweight. Although used by people, and thus considered to be artifacts, these may not have any use wear or other characteristics of an artifact.
But, pertaining to the subject, we go about these studies systematically, working from the known to the unknown, and working from evidence.
This is the opposite of "design studies" which assume the conclusion and then scratch about for any evidence to support that conclusion.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
™ Version 4.2
