[PatrickHenry]

How do we reconcile this definition of design [" ...tend to imply some sort of abstract thought and conscious will ..."] with the notion of a beehive or termite mound as designed? Can we reconcile this definition of design with a beehive being designed? If not, is there some other definition of design that doesn't require conscious will and/or abstract thought, which bees are, after all, lacking?

If you include among the "designed" a behive and a termite mound (and presumably a clam shell, a spider web, a gopher hole, a beaver dam and a bird's nest too), then why not a pile of dog poop? Just as much "abstract thought and conscious will" is involved -- by which I mean none. To my way of looking at things, all such phenomena are natural objects, and not the result of intelligent design.

I was serious back in post 489 when I proposed this:

Nature: By this, I mean something that happens, or that is formed, "naturally," in accordance with the laws of physics, chemistry, etc., and without intelligent intervention (ignoring the issue of whether Providence is deliberately causing everything to happen) -- for example, the Mississippi River, as it existed before humans lived in North America, is natural.

Intelligence (or Design): By this, I mean things or events that are the result of intelligent intervention in the otherwise natural processes of the universe -- for example, the Hoover Dam, the Panama Canal, etc., are not natural.

[general_re]

I think we're mostly on the same page here - I'm just trying to figure out how you would define "design" such that a beehive is designed, and I'm not having much luck with anything other than the design of the beehive being a one-off process, where the bees are designed, and the beehive is therefore designed as a part of bee behavior. But as I was getting at earlier, I don't think that's at all helpful, useful, or logically tenable...