Is Evolution Intelligent?

No. Evolution is a natural process that benefits the most successful genetics (DNA patterns), because they are likely to have more offspring to carry their genetics into the future. Unsuccessful organisms necessarily have fewer offspring. Given a great many generations, the best performing genetics gradually becomes the most common within a species. Thus, each species is able to slowly adapt to it's particular environment. Some people call this process micro-evolution.

Sometimes the DNA of particular organism is slightly different than its peers because of a genetic error, called a single point mutation. Many such mutations are fatal for the new organism, but a percentage of mutants do survive to reproduce and introduce a sudden minor change into a species' gene pool. If that mutation increases the survival of the organisms that carry it, the mutation becomes a growing part of that species' genetics and is acted upon by micro-evolution. Sexual reproduction helps reduce the vulnerability of the offspring of such mutants.

Completely new species can sometimes emerge by a different form of mutation, sometimes referred to as chromosome resequencing. In this case, a strand of DNA may break and recombine, changing the order of the genes along its length. All the necessary protein defining codons remain undamaged, but they have been re-arranged so that fetal development is impacted. This results in an organism that is markedly different than its peers. This process is sometimes called macro-evolution. As usual, natural selection determines whether the altered organism's DNA will eventually become part of its species gene pool.

In the case of the human beings (and the modern horse), Two previously separate chromosomes were connected end-to-end, forming a single new chromosome. Our number 2 chromosome is the result of this particular form of mutation, called chromosome fusion. This is why all the great apes, and presummably our ancient ancestor-species have (had) 24 chromosomes, while human beings have 23 chromosomes. The Australipithicine mother of the female version of this mutation, was Mitochondrial Eve. Note that such a 23 chromosome individual cannot effectively breed back into its original gene pool because all its offspring would be sterile -- for exactly the same reason mules are sterile, the wrong number of chromosomes. If the 23 chromosome mutant were able to breed with another similar mutant, an entirely new species would result. It is very likely that Mitochondrial Eve had multiple offspring with the same chromosome fusion mutation and that brother-sister incest between similar mutants was the true origin of the human species.

Conclusion: As you can see, neither these various genetic processes nor natural selection itself requires an intelligence to direct them. Both micro- and macro-evolution are entirely natural and simply occur because that is the way that DNA chemistry happens to work.

If evolution was a person then we'd have someone with the ability to adopt to an environment and camouflage to protect from predators, learn over time, pass on valuable information to the next generation, become more complex and more advanced.

If it was a being it sounds like a darn intelligent one :)

Since it is not a being but a process we can only say it is an intelligent process (which of course rises the usual timeless question...)

The answer is the same as to the question "Do environmental changes have intelligence?"

Evolution results in part from environmental changes. If some magic man in the sky made all life he would have to be continually doing it because new species have constantly been coming and going over the life of the Earth. It is STILL happening.

No. Evolution is just the way to describe the differences between an organism and its parents. It's like asking if chemical reactions are or have intelligence.

Science got rid of the most important cause in Aristotle's four causes, the Final Cause. This question is outside the domain of science but very important.

A book devoted largely to your question comes out in a week or two with a new introduction.

Etienne Gilson's From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again: A Journey in Final Causality, Species and Evolution

" The overreaching of many scientists into fields beyond their competence is perhaps explained in part by the loss of an important idea in modern thinking—final causality or purpose. Scientists understandably bracket the idea out of their scientific thinking because they seek natural explanations and other kinds of causes. Yet many of them wrongly conclude from their selective study of the world that final causes do not exist at all and that they have no place in the rational study of life. Likewise, many erroneously assume that philosophy cannot draw upon scientific findings, in light of final causality, to better understand the world and man.

The great philosopher and historian of philosophy Etienne Gilson sets out in this book to show that final causality or purposiveness is an inevitable idea for those who think hard and carefully about the world, including the world of biology. Gilson insists that a completely rational understanding of organisms and biological systems requires the philosophical notion of teleology, the idea that certain kinds of things exist and have ends or purposes the fulfillment of which is linked to their natures. In other words, final causes. His approach relies on philosophical reflection on the facts of science, not upon theology or an appeal to religious authorities such as the Church or the Bible. "

Etienne Gilson (1884-1978) was a French philosopher and historian of philosophy, and a member of the prestigious French Academy.

The process of evolution can look intelligent because living things with traits suitable for survival in their environment appear to be made to suit, but they are just the ones who could survive, and those who were ill-suited died off.

Seems it is only the fundies that do not think so!!

The Pope, Catholic Church, Church of England and mainstream churches all accept evolution and the big bang!!

Lord Carey the former Archbishop of Canterbury put it rather well – “Creationism is the fruit of a fundamentalist approach to scripture, ignoring scholarship and critical learning, and confusing different understandings of truth”!!

Evolution itself does not rely on an intelligent creator, though it is not random either.

Many people believe in theistic evolution, which put intelligent design into the scientific theory but it is not scientific.

It has natural selection :p. But as for controlling what it becomes, I don't think so. Though if people do genetic engineering, I guess evolution will have learned to control itself and it would have intelligence wouldn't it?

No evolution does not have a grand plan or design if thats what your asking. It's natural selection and that means which ever species survives better, it's a harsh system but thats how life works.