Interesting idea this, because in fact it allows for the possibility that
natural design arose by natural mechanistic means, and not the action of a
designer. Behe's definition of design does not rule this out, because
"purposeful" simply means "having or manifesting a purpose"; this does not
automatically imply that the purpose was intentionally created. I grant
that the common usage of the term implies intent, but it can be used without
that implication, and the case of natural design is not necessarily a
common-usage situation.
The problem for IDers is then to provide evidence that the purpose built
into natural "artifacts" was intentional and did not simply derive from
natural processes.
>
>Howard has never responded to or acknowledged noun-definitions of design
>given by IDers. He wants IDers to define design as a verb. He has their
>answer, "We don't know at this time how design in nature is accomplished,
>we just know that it exists."
>
If in fact natural design did derive from natural processes and not the
action of an intelligent designer, then we do know how it was accomplished:
evolution.
Kevin L. O'Brien