On stupid delegations of intelligence

When a problem would need a work of intelligence to be resolved but some people do not have the needed intelligence in themselves to solve the problem, they may offer the "solution" of letting something else in charge of being intelligent in their place, expecting this other intelligence to discover the solution that they could not discover themselves. Examples:

• Religious people, recognizing so well how fallible are their thoughts and plans, take it as a solution to follow God's will and teachings, as if the assumption of presence and the correct identification of such a source of information were a less risky enterprise.
• The Zeitgeist Movement aims to follow more scientific plans, similarly missing any serious ability to discern what a genuine scientificity may look like.
• The Artificial Intelligent thesis is another speculative expectation of an intelligence higher that our own.
  

Actually, quite a number of the essays of that contest have this attitude, of taking as the solution for the world to go forward is to implement some kind of process expected to have the virtue of bringing or serving as the intelligence we need for the world's progress, so as to excuse their own inability to bring any effectively intelligent discovery themselves.
Such a program may look plausible when seen from a distance, but, usually, the devil is in the details. This is a chicken and egg problem. Systems of power delegations may run into trouble if everybody just delegates his power to someone else, forming endless loops where nobody can be found at any step with the proper intelligence to actually exercise this power. If you are not intelligent yourself, how can you really know the nature and conditions of intelligence to such a point that you can find out the correct way to discern and pick up the proper source of intelligence, or what exactly the process best able to provide the needed intelligence should look like ? Either you have to really know someone who really knows, or someone has to be clever enough to reliably discern or design the kind of complex impersonal process we would have good reasons to expect to be the qualified impersonal source of intelligence.

Here is a kind of general case of how naive "intelligence programs" may fail to produce some needed intelligent behavior: if the solution to a problem is a matter of accessing and processing a specific kind of information from the world, a fundamentally contingent information that "exists somewhere" (as each piece of the puzzle is known by someone or someone else) but is not readily accessible, then making someone or something "intelligent" will not help the least bit to discover what decision needs to be taken, as long as the needed piece of data remains out of reach, not being readily available in a format that makes it usable to be processed by this intelligence (nor logically deducible from available data because of the large entropy of information of all what goes on in the world).