[edsheppa]

So what that you're making a distinction without a difference?

No, I am making a distinction but somehow failing to communicate it to you. The distinction between design and non-design in otherwise identical circumstances is whether or not the result was intended.

You're treating words as ends in themselves, rather than means to an end.

No, I am trying to make sure you and I mean the same thing by the word design so that we can tell if, as you have asserted, the outcome of an evolutionary process can never be called designed.

[inquest]

Let's look at the definition you used: "First, the result must be intended by the designer. Second, the result must act to bring about the result. Third, the intended result must obtain."

Now say I draw up the plans for a house, in every detail, but don't build it. Say I then show the plans to you, and you then give the go-ahead to build it, and it gets built. Most people would consider me the designer, but under this definition above, you could be considered the designer. You knew what you wanted the house to look like (because I showed you the plans), you acted by giving the order to have it built, and the intended result did obtain.