Is this a sound logical syllogism about evolution being intelligent?

Would this be any better?

P1: A network is a bunch of parts linked up to store and share information. 
P2: intelligence emerges from networks. 
P3: Evolution is a network because it emerges out of a bunch of parts that are linked up that store and share information. 
P4: Evolution solves external problems via this process. 
Therefore, evolution is an intelligent process.

Not really. Outside of the logic, I am wondering what the point of this argument even is? Who cares if we call evolution an "intelligent process" or not? From a theistic/atheistic perspective, neither side should care. The real argument is whether or not intelligence comes from a god.

I dont know, maybe to find common ground between intelligent design advocates and evolutionists? So that evolution could be more accepted by intelligent design advocates? Even if evolution is not by a god but is intelligent? It would mean both sides were partially correct. 

Remember that most ID proponents accept evolution—they just think a god started the process. The theists will have a difficult time accepting the premise that intelligence is an emergent property. In fact, if if they agreed with that, they would probably be an atheist.

Perhaps if evolution is an intelligent process, then they could believe god at least uses evolution to create. At least then they would accept evolution. Would be better than not accepting it as far as progress of science goes. 

Insofar as this argument relates to the existence of God, two comments:

1)  There may be an equivocation issue as to what is meant by "intelligent".  Does it mean complex (as in an intelligent computer network) or does "intelligent" imply consciousness (as in a God-like force). 

2)  Secondly, this is reminiscent of the famous watchmaker argument by analogy for the existence of God. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy     If you saw a watch on the beach and you examined it, it would be apparent that it must have had an intelligent creator.  Similarly, "the complex structures of living things and the remarkable adaptations of plants and animals required an intelligent designer."

[To Ed F]

Intelligence here means a complex interactive systemic network. It does not mean consciousness. Consciousness is just aware of intelligence. According to evolution the network came first and consciousness emerged from it. So the network intelligence is primary to consciousness. 

I dont think its like the watch maker argument. This process can be an ai, computer systems, a coral reef, a forest, a organ, a society or anything with these attributes and it doesnt have to be conscious or an individual. This argument is simply saying complex systemic interactive networks have an emergent property which is intelligence. Intelligence is what emerges when a bunch of units link up to store and share information. And evolution is a complex systemic interactive network. Therefore, intelligence emerges out of this evolutionary process to create intelligent evolving adaptations that solve external problems. Like evolving a wing when flight is needed for example. 

[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Is this syllogism any better? Or is it the fallacy of composition? 

P1: Intelligence emerges from the process of all large scale systemic interactive networks. 
P2: The evolutionary process is a large scale systemic interactive network. 
P3: intelligence emerges from evolution.
C: Therefore, evolution in the totality of all its processes combined is intelligent.

There is still a disconnect. You are have an unnecessary premise, and wording a bit unclear. Try this one:

P1: Intelligence emerges from large scale systemic interactive networks. 
P2: Evolution is a large scale systemic interactive network.
C: Therefore, intelligence emerges from evolution.

Otherwise, you need to connect "an intelligent process" to "a large scale systemic interactive network."

Again, this really just a claim about the emergence of intelligence. If you want to make any progress with the theist, you need to add to the argument something they already accept and show how if they accept that they must accept the emergence of intelligence. I'll leave that to you.

[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Thanks Bo! How about this one? 

P1: Intelligence emerges from the process of large scale systemic interactive networks. 
P2: The evolutionary process is a large scale systemic interactive network. 
P3: intelligence emerges from evolution.
C: Therefore, evolution in the totality of all its networks and processes combined is intelligent.

Im having another problem too. When I run this concept by other atheists or evolutionary biologists they hate the idea because it integrates intelligence into evolution and they have been conditioned to hate that due to the culture war between intelligent design and biological evolution. 

Sure... perhaps you can get some feedback from other members too.

Would this be any better? Or is it the fallacy of composition? 

P1: A network is a bunch of parts linked up to store and share information.  
P2: intelligence always emerges from networks and works to solve problems.  
P3: Evolution is a network because it emerges out of a bunch of parts that are linked up that store and share information.  
P4: Evolution solves external problems via this process.  
Therefore, evolution is an intelligent process.

Yes, this would be valid.  But questionable as to whether it's sound (using the definition that a "sound argument" is an argument that's valid and has all true premises).  

Premises P1 and P4 as well as the second half of P2 are superfluous (but that doesn't change the validity).  A simpler version would be:

P1  All networks are intelligent.

P2:  Evolution is a network.

C:   Therefore, evolution is intelligent.

That is a valid argument (but not necessarily sound).

Thank you, yes I like that syllogism much better. A lot more simple. 

Perhaps this one would have more true premises....

P1 All large scale systemic interacive networks are intelligent.

P2: Evolution is a large scale systemic interactive network.

C:   Therefore, evolution is intelligent.

It does not violate it, it commits it...

Yes, thank you.  It commits it.