Although, natural selection does have a bias toward propagating and persisting information. Since the information is part of the universe I would say some of the universe exhibits intent. Bacteria is part of the life, inanimate matter became life, life is a vehicle of transmitting and persisting information.
To think about 'us' as something other than the universe is a folly. If we care, then part of the universe cares because we are part of the whole.
Any selection pressure is there to trial the data and persist the useful data. What is considered 'useful'? Well, that's an existential question that is synonymous to `what's the point to life`. I don't have the answer but there does seem to be an intent in the process.
I disagree. The process viewed at this level is closed over itself - the only criteria for what's useful is "whatever survives". There's no intent here - natural selection only amplifies the structure of the environment in which it happens.
But thats just it, thats exactly how it is - closed over itself.
The intent comes from the design, decided by the physics of the system. With this physics set, life is possible, and this sort of life can survive. Deeper intent comes through in the form of meaning - it was necessary that as intelligent agents evolved and emerged, that they have understandings of good and bad, happiness and pain. And from those, life lessons which are universal - tied to existence of life in general - emerge. If it is destined that whatever surviving life learns these principles to survive, that seems to give a sort of roadmap for existence, an intention of how its supposed to go.
I like this view as it models the universe in self contained meaningful (includes purpose) way without any supernatural claim. I don't believe it necessarily shuts out any supernatural claim either, if you happen to have such belief. But of course you can simply call the universe or the concept of existence itself 'God', and it does seem quite fitting still.