OK, fine, I will accept that terminology. But now let's ask the non-terminological question, here is a thing X, is it designed?
Let's take your dog scenario first. You've recently bought a dog. You say "lie down" and the dog lies down. Is that outcome designed? In particular, on what basis should *I* say that it is designed. Clearly, because of the way you have defined design, you agree I must believe that you intended that the dog lie down. For example I might be convinced instead that you were just joking around and didn't expect the dog to lie down at all. In that case I should not believe the dog's lying down to be by your design.
But I don't think it's enough to simply have the intent. There must also be some causal connection between the design (your definition) and the result. If the dog were deaf and lay down simply because it was tired, I think you should agree that the result was not your design. This is part two of my design detection procedure.
Whatever part is designed is designed.
OK, I see we are in agreement. Getting back to your original claim that
"Letting them evolve" is the antithesis of designing them.you would agree that "letting them evolve" can be design. Specifically, the outcome is designed to the extent that it was originally specified.
Or perhaps it would be better to say that it is designed if it is implied by the specification. Well, that might be going too far but it is an interesting approach.
This also raises yet another point. I think I am missing a step in my design detector. Probably there must be an actual prior specification in addition to intent. IOW there must both a specification and a will toward implementing that specification. Do you agree?
The only thing that's "designed" is the bare fact that evolution is taking place. The actual evolutionary pathways themselves are not being designed. Again, I think most people can tell the difference between a process that involves design and one that doesn't. Letting something happen on its own does not.
Probably there must be an actual prior specification in addition to intent. IOW there must both a specification and a will toward implementing that specification. Do you agree?
Assuming I understand you correctly, I don't agree. I can design an object without having any intention of actually creating it, and it's still my design.