You're applying your own arbitrary definition of intelligence, using that to frame the argument and declare yourself right. AI as a subject got past that kind of crap by the 90s with a realisation that it's a little more complex than all that.
You dismiss various AI solutions as just being a bunch of algorithms, well guess what? we still have absolutely no evidence that human beings themselves aren't run by a bunch of algorithms, the only difference is that we just don't understand them well enough to document or reproduce them synthetically yet.
It's stupid to declare something like a neural network or expert system not intelligent just because you understand the details of it because most people who see the actions of a neural network would say "That's pretty intelligent how it can do that".
If you have two closed boxes for classifying say, wine. In one is a person and in the other is a computer with equipment and a neural network trained for wine classification and a wine sample goes in and a classification is displayed on a screen by entering an output and the computer can of course do it better than any person people are pretty much always going to class the computers response as the intelligent one when it gets far more tests right. The Turing test was designed to show the sorts of intelligence we see in strong AI, but modified versions of that display intelligence from weak AI in select circumstances.
So yes, you can absolutely say things like neural nets, and expert systems are not strong AI, but you absolutely cannot say they are not intelligent without framing it on the rather stupid definition that something is not intelligent if we understand how it works. In some circumstances these systems would be deemed to be more intelligent than humans by most people and as we don't have a fixed definition of intelligence that seems a far better way of judging intelligence - getting people's judgement on intelligence in a statistically sound study than coming up with definitions like "Something is intelligent if we don't understand how it works".
If computer algorithms could show no intelligence whatsoever then we'd only be using them to do dumb repetition, like building cars on an assembly line, but we don't, we use them to augment our search capabilities, to correct our grammar and spelling, to figure out an optimal path for data to travel down on a complex network and so on and so forth far better than a human could - we're using them to augment our intelligence every day and many ways, and that's because they can display some intelligence. Not conciousness, not strong AI, but a degree of intelligence all the same.
You're conflating conciousness, intelligence, and strong AI all into one big pot, but it's all far more nuanced than that. You're assuming life works in a binary way, where something is either not intelligent, or something has human level intelligence and artificial would be a strong AI. But god only knows, we have enough evidence of various living things in this world to see that there are varying gradients of conciousness and intelligence for that to be true. Assuming it'd somehow be different with computers makes no sense and guess what? in the last 20 years we've seen progress with AI research with ever increasing levels of intelligence. When that'll escalate to the level of what we deem strong AI, or human intelligence is anyone's guess but we're not suddenly going to go from having no strong AI to having strong AI, we're going to have ever increasingly intelligent stuff that approaches strong AI and eventually becomes good enough to declare as strong AI.