I see no reason to think there isn't intelligent life. After all, it happened here. (Ignoring debates on if there is actually intelligent life here.) I see no reason to think that we're special in any way.
Then you need to look at how multicellular life began. You see, there were two unicellular organisms...one of them somehow infiltrated the other's cell. The infiltrator then somehow wormed its own genetic code into that of its new host cell. That infiltrator then somehow transformed into what we call a "mitochondrion" (aka "the powerhouse of the cell") and provided far more energy to its host cell than the host cell ever had.
WIthout the mitochondrion, it's not clear that we would ever have had multicellular life. Remember Life started 3.5 billion years ago...and for 3 billion years there was no multicellular life. It's only in the past 500 million years that any multicellular life form has existed.
Remember, evolution has no goal, and no path. In most ways single celled life is more successful than multicellular life. It's far more abundant, even if we tend not to notice it. Evolution doesn't care how genetic material is propagated, and multicelular organisms represent an almost unfathomable increase in the amount of resources needed for that propagation. It's many orders of magnitude different.
There is no reason to believe that the absorption of the mitochondrian was anything more than a happy accident for us. What that means is that we do not have enough data to conclusively state, one way or another, how likely multicellular life forms would be. You can pretend we do know enough based on a "we are not special" assumption...but the validity of that assumption is not really known as there's no data that proves it.
It's rather like sexual reproduction. Biologists have no idea why it developed, since it seems to be measurably less reliable and more costly than asexual reproduction. We can and often do assume that aliens will have sexual reproduction of some sort even though we do not have data that shows us why it was a favored trait even on this planet.
I am not saying there is no intelligent life out there, I am simply saying we do not have the data needed to make any reasonable prediction of its likelihood. In that case, it is better to say "maybe" with the caveat "we can't really know" than to make assumptions about variables based on a single emergence of life.
The emergence of life on Earth isn't "data", it is at most a single datum. Relying on what we see here and extrapolating into the universe is to reason on the basis of a single anecdote. If I told you I saw a herd of ostriches, the analogy would be your concluding that all birds, everywhere, are 6-9 feet tall and very fast (and flightless) runners. Maybe, though, that species of bird is an outlier (i.e. ostriches really are "special" in their physical characteristics), and the reasoning from anecdote is therefore flawed.
Why do people have such a hard time saying "I don't really know" rather than expressing false certainty in accordance with their preferences? Whatever the reason, your belief is one based on faith in your assumptions, and not logically compelled.
So the logical answer is "maybe." The faith-based answer is "yes."