Trying to strengthen it, of course. It shows that according to supporters of evolution, there is no problem believing that a robot (capable of reproducing) could come into being without design. But we know that even a reproducing robot would constitute evidence of design. In fact, the design inference is even stronger. The fact is that with all the technology we have, they still have not succeeded in creating a walking robot capable of making copies of itself. So supporters of evolution contradict themselves when they assume that a robot made of plastic indicates design, while in their view a reproducing robot (for example, a penguin) does not indicate design. In addition, according to the atheistic position, the entire universe was created through a natural process. From this it follows that even a plastic robot, on your view, is the final product of a natural process (the Big Bang). Or in other words: natural process + time = robot.

I wrote this in my article and in my book. The basic claim is that even if there are laws within which evolution produces human beings, then it is the laws that require explanation. Laws are not created through evolution.

By the way, I meant: according to their view. And I agree that even if some kind of process exists that creates a complex thing like a clock, the existence of the process itself requires explanation, since we know that clocks are a product of intelligence. Just as if we arrived at an automatic factory for producing cars, and saw that the car was created there gradually and without any visible designer—we would not infer lack of design.

By the way, is the Rabbi familiar with the problem of irreducible complexity? For example: blood vessels are of no use without blood fluid, and blood fluid is of no use without blood vessels. Both are of no use without a heart to circulate the blood. Another example: a stomach is of no use without the digestive enzymes in it. The digestive enzymes are of no use without the stomach, and both are of no use without a special layer separating the stomach from the digestive enzymes, otherwise the stomach would digest itself. These two examples show us that gradual development is seemingly impossible, since there is no use in only one part of the system without the other parts. Which indicates, apparently, that the organism was created complete and did not develop gradually.

Very familiar. This is a lively, intense, and old debate (and also an unnecessary one) between creationists and neo-Darwinians. In my opinion this is a fairly weak argument, and it also is not needed for the theological discussion.
Its weakness is that there is no way to know that the intermediate stages really are unnecessary and are not survivable remnants, and there is also no way to determine what evolutionary distance can be considered an irreducible gap. After all, evolutionary processes can include jumps, and sometimes non-survivable stages survive anyway. Evolution has a large random component. Beyond that, many claim they have found such intermediate stages (as with the eye) and have shown their different benefits.

The problem is that the jumps creation supporters talk about are too large. If we take the eye, for example, one can think of a minimal camera. And just as a minimal camera requires at least 3-4 parts for minimal functioning, by analogy we are talking about at least 3-4 genes. I do not know any evolutionary biologist who would think that 3-4 genes can arise in one stroke. The same goes for “intermediate stages”: after all, one can also find “intermediate stages” in designed objects. For example, a commercial vehicle is an “intermediate stage” between a car and a truck. A flying car is an “intermediate stage” between a car and an airplane, and so on. But it is clear to everyone that this does not indicate that they developed from one another. In addition, many fossils do not appear in the proper order at all, and we find primitive fossils alongside modern ones (I can give you examples, but I detailed them in the post I linked above).

If we take intelligence, then clearly the jump between an ape and an intelligent human is too large.
So it may be that no such jump occurred and we remained at an ape-level intellect.
And therefore it would be better not to raise objections and ask questions that supposedly concern the search for truth when they are meant to justify preconceived opinions.