Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >   OTOH, it also depends how exactly you define "design".

> The verb "to design" implies one who designs.  "Design" is not 
> "emergence".

  Well, I think one could *colloquially* (iow. not scientifically) say
something like "evolution has designed birds to fly", even though the
"designing" process was not made be any conscious being, but was simply
a consequence of undirected natural phenomena. (Of course this may be a
bit of a poor way of phrasing it because "design" could be interpreted
so that there was a target towards which evolution aimed at, and directed
changes towards that target. Naturally this isn't the case, and the "design"
as a concept can only be applied retrospectively. However, attacking the
use of the word "design" may be seen as needlessly pedantic.)

  Now, if the argument is "we shouldn't be using the word 'design' in this
context because it easily gets associated with the ID movement", than that's
a completely different issue.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message