Are Biological Systems More Intelligent Than Artificial Intelligence?

Are biological self-organising systems more ``intelligent'' than artificial intelligence (AI)? If so, why? I address this question using a mathematical framework that defines intelligence in terms of adaptability. Systems are modelled as stacks of abstraction layers (\emph{Stack Theory}) and compared by how effectively they delegate agentic control down their stacks. I illustrate this using computational, biological, military, governmental, and economic systems. Contemporary AI typically relies on static, human-engineered stacks whose lower layers are fixed during deployment. Put provocatively, such systems resemble inflexible bureaucracies that adapt only top-down. Biological systems are more intelligent because they delegate adaptation. Formally, I prove a theorem (\emph{The Law of the Stack}) showing that adaptability at higher layers is bottlenecked by adaptability at lower layers. I further show that, under standard viability assumptions, maximising adaptability is equivalent to minimising variational free energy, implying that delegation is necessary for free-energy minimisation. Generalising bioelectric accounts of cancer as isolation from collective informational structures, I analyse cancer-like failure modes in non-biological systems when delegation is inadequate. This yields design principles for building robust systems via delegated control, and reframes hybrid agents (e.g. organoids or human--AI systems) as weak boundary-condition design problems in which constraints shape low-level policy spaces while preserving collective identity.