I don't think there's a single universal concept of intelligence. I think IQ measures a subset of all that can be termed intelligence. The 2 concepts aren't the same, and the move to treat them the same underlies a lot of the issues people have with them.

A tool can capture a fragment of something fuzzy. If that model is the best that's available then it may be reasonable to use it while acknowledging its limitations. Some will acknowledge those limits and some pretend they don't really exist.

People are quick to jump to claiming IQ represents the totality of intelligence then circularly defining intelligence as that shown by IQ. These tactics make people question the model.

The history of IQ tests, and a lot of the "race and IQ" folks with fabricated "National IQ" data give the tool a bad name. I think psychologists need to do a much better job if they wish to separate their field from the same motives that made people distrust them initially.

But the field itself struggles to answer what I think are valid questions from those who still distrust it. They too often default to dissociating from "the bad people" and asking people to trust what they do instead. It'll take more than that I think.

IQ is both an empirical and a values metric. What society values is what it'll consider intelligence. What is chosen to include in tests and when the results are considered good are values questions.
But the metric is reliable with those caveats.

So I'm not going to disown IQ tests. I've got enough reasons to think they measure something. I've also got enough reasons to think they don't measure certain things they should. The refusal to listen, update and engage with the public doesn't help the good folks in the field.