I think the point of this thread is to try to come to understand that it does not. Words can have more than one meaning, and more than one implication.
We can simply decide to understand that the word can have that other meaning too, design without agency.
We obviously don’t, but that isn’t the point. The point is that we know of a mechanism of design that doesn’t involve a conscious intelligent designer. That this mechanism, this blind physical process, can ultimately produce complex and functional entities and adaptations without some designing agency behind it being necessary for such an outcome.
Yeah that they understand the value of parsimony in scientific inference, and that they know about and understand the process of evolution. Just like they don’t talk about gravity-fairies in explaining rainfall. Do we really truly know that there are no invisible fairies pulling drops of water to the ground? No. But do we need that hypothesis to explain rain? No.