Which is interesting, because the vast majority of people (including and perhaps especially those who reject intelligent design in biology) think that a relatively stable and successful society and economy can only exist when organized by a centrally and deliberately planned body called government. That's essentially the "intelligent design" belief for human societies.
If you believe that intelligence is the product of natural selection, and also observe that nature has very strongly selected for human social organization under a government, it's far from unreasonable to use the advantage of the intelligence we've evolved to augment the advantages of the governments we've evolved.
Natural selection often creates a relationship between predator and prey that looks red in tooth and claw -- bears and salmon, wolves and elk, etc.. No one will argue that the wolf represents an advantage to any individual elk, but to the elk genotype, the argument can be made that the wolf confers an advantage.
It's the same with governments and people -- history proves that relationship red in tooth and claw as well. The surviving elk outrun the wolves, and the surviving people stay one step ahead of predatory governments.
When Stalin signed the non-aggression pact with Hitler, he began a purge of his military. Anyone who had spoken against Hitler beforehand was purged -- shot or sent to Siberia. Then, when Hitler broke the pact and invaded Russia, all those officers who had spoken in Hitler's favor were purged. The survivors were those few who didn't have an opinion, or who didn't dare express it.
The Cultural Revolution in China purged all those bourgeois elitists who had a college degree or who had acquired skills like science and technology, or any significant academic achievement. Now everything has changed and individual Chinese are allowed -- nay, encouraged -- to educate themselves for success, acquire wealth, and grow the economy -- exactly the opposite of the Cultural Revolution outlook. It is a very wise person who avoided any problems during the Cultural Revolution, and who avoid any problems now.
My point? Elk who survive do so by avoiding wolves. People who survive do so by avoiding governments. It's true that wolves improve the genetic stock of elk, just as governments improve the genetic stock of people, and by the same method -- by tearing the weak and sick to pieces.
I never made that argument that anything is good or bad because nature has selected strongly for it. That's essentially an appeal to nature. Nature strongly selected for using animals as a main land transportation mechanism for a long time, but hopefully no one would argue that therefore no one should have worked at discovering a better alternative.
Even if government is the best way to organize society at the moment, that doesn't mean it's unreasonable to look for better alternatives. But again, none of this has to do with the analogy to intelligent design I was making.
"Relatively stable and successful" is, of course, relative. When judged against the hypothetical outcomes of roads not traveled, they could look like ongoing atrocities.
