Well, I'm glad we can all put aside our past differences on one topic, when we discuss a completely different topic. Thank you again, OMGF.

I find it especially ironic, because I agree with you on this one:

I'm being pedantic here, but I disagree. The word "design" already has a well-established defintion as you concede when you bring Dennett into it, since he admits as much by saying that we would need to "extend" the definition. Factually, "design" does not mean what some are trying to make it mean and is therefore the wrong word to use.

Which is what I was trying to say. Neither "design" nor "designoid" works for evolution, and since it turns out the English language already has at least two words that do fit -- "adapted" and "evolved" -- why try to hammer a square peg into a round hole?

There is no possibility here of this post being "right" or "wrong". The discussion is not about any factual disagreement - we can define the word "design" either way as we choose.

I'm being pedantic here, but I disagree. The word "design" already has a well-established defintion as you concede when you bring Dennett into it, since he admits as much by saying that we would need to "extend" the definition. Factually, "design" does not mean what some are trying to make it mean and is therefore the wrong word to use.

There is no possibility here of this post being "right" or "wrong". The discussion is not about any factual disagreement - we can define the word "design" either way as we choose. Instead it is about the best way to use language to describe what we agree is going on.

More specifically, what's at issue is how our words may best "cleave nature at the joins". Does the natural join lie along the line of intent by a conscious intender? Or is the word better used to describe what evolved things and human-designed things have in common - being fit for a task in a way that is far beyond the reach of chance?

Personally, I think the latter - I am persuaded by Dennett's arguments in "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" that we should extend the word "design" to what evolution does, if only because we lack words to describe the things that intent and evolution have in common, which is that they are the only mechanisms we know of capable of producing artifacts that are supremely good at what they do. But we have to be aware that as a debate this is only slightly more important than whether submarines can be said to swim (cf Dijkstra).

Using terms thus, Darwin's big idea is that something can have design without being designed.

The biggest fallacy of creationism is its treatment of passive verb. Use a passive verb, ever, with the natural world, and they take you to be implying an agent. Something designed must have a designer; something built must have a builder; etc. (Of course this reasoning is nonrigorous, but it's easier to avoid altogether.)

Structure is often independent of design

Actually, that's a large part of the reason I picked it. I meant that it's sort of synonymous with the intent of the OP, not synonymous with the word design. In fact I think it's appropriate because it points out how nature can be organized in a very specific way but not be intentionally designed that way. I feel like if you talk about the naturally-occurring structure of nature you're acknowledging the amazing relationships and forms while steering clear of any intent or influence. I hope that makes sense.

If I can make the suggestion of using structure as sort of a synonymous substitute

You can't really. Structure is often independent of design; think of a sand dune, a deep sea smoker or a mountain range (unless Slartibartfast did it:})

I actually agree with just about everyone here on some level. I agree that there's a very dangerous word-association game that we unfortunately have to play if we want to reach anyone already smothered in religious rhetoric. I also agree that just saying something to the effect that there's an illusory appearance of design, or calling something designoid can make it appear to certain ears that we're simply choosing to ignore the signs of God's truth, or that we're trying to manipulate religious truth into our own blasphemous lies. I agree with Ebon that in a strictly lexical sense natural design implies no more intelligence than natural law, but the world in which we live does attach connotations to the word that are impossible to ignore. If I can make the suggestion of using structure as sort of a synonymous substitute as in, "the ecosystem is full of naturally-evolved structure." Or, "true, the moth can't reach the nectar without a long proboscis, but this relationship displays a structure whose development can be explained without reference to divine influence." It might not be perfect, but it's a thought.

Nevertheless, I applaud any attempt by any atheist anywhere, to develop a personality independent of the ubiquitous Professor Dawkins. So feel free to ignore my quibbles. :)

Even if that attempt is factually wrong? How objective of you.

Nevertheless, I applaud any attempt by any atheist anywhere, to develop a personality independent of the ubiquitous Professor Dawkins. So feel free to ignore my quibbles. :)

Creationists are going to abuse any terms we use, so we shouldn't let them make the rules. As soon as we say random, and before we get out mutation, they're already thinking of tornodoes in junkyards, so we never even get as far as the (non-random) selection part of our explanation. So this might be a good tactic to try in an argument.