The words we used are loaded with connotations. That is one reason why I like Dawkins' word "designoid" to label these designs that we are calling "natural design" here.
An analogy:
If I have a jigsaw puzzle to solve and instead of looking at the picture, the shape of pieces, how the picture colours match and so on I simply take every single piece and try then with every other one in all orientations can I then say that I have "sovled" the puzzle in any way that is like a "good" puzzler would?
If I was trying to write a computer program to solve puzzles clearly I could write one to do a puzzle as described above. But would I have done anything that would be considered an advance in AI research? Would it be an "intelligent" puzzle solver?
I suggest that pretty much all of us would say no it is not intelligent.
However, we try to say that intelligence is involved in the "design" of living things when the "design" approach is exactly like that of my simply minded (so simple as to apply no mind at all) approach to puzzles.
In the end the pattern comes out but at no stage was there any intelligence that recognizes that there is a pattern.
™ Version 4.2