I appreciate your interest. I would also guess that you didn't go through the whole exchange, because I already elaborated on why intelligence and design can be separated. Simply speaking you can have "unintelligent" design as well as spontaneous, self-regulating systems with appearance of intentional design. In the course of the exchange, we managed to boil it down to deliberate intention. I subsequently summarized my thoughts in an article, link to which was at the end of the whole conversation. Anyway, here you go:

https://senderspike.medium.com/chance-design-e45b9ae38787

Of course I did consider existence of universe before planetary formation. After all, there is plenty of info on this matter, and one must ignore a substantial portion of modern cosmology and physics not to consider pre-planetary universe. Thus, your reduction is a step in the right direction, but universe (even as far as physics is concerned) can be reduced even further. Again, I leave you links to two other pieces where I elaborated on that (those articles also make a clear point why such reduction is necessary).

https://senderspike.medium.com/let-there-be-light-ac9cb17e26c1

https://senderspike.medium.com/absolute-equivalence-b4584dc2e290

As for the talking behind one's back --frankly, I'm not as particular about it as I may appear. I'm only mildly annoyed how writers on Medium argue each other in their articles as if they were talking to dead people or someone who is inaccessible (as in you won't go posting the link to your critique of a movie to the movie's promo web even if it was possible). Not to mention that most of the writers that do so won't reply to your comments if those comments show even a slightest hint of a critique (or will block you right off the bat). So that's that.

In any case, thanks for feedback once again. I hope I satiated your curiosity ;)