Sure, but I’m not aware of anyone who claims that science has shown that some deity isn’t secretly hiding behind the scenes making stuff happen. Anyone, even the most strident Arch-evolutionist you can think of, would probably concede that point if asked.
Yes. I’ve understood that the Danish word “kost” can mean either a broom, or diet, since I was like 4 years old.
The problem here is that by referring to an object someone would say is a “design” by another term just provokes the charge that scientists are somehow afraid of using the word “design”, or afraid to admit that it “has the appearance of design”. Or innumerable similar types of silly accusations.
Either way, there is going to have to be an argument. Whether a semantic argument(what do we mean by"design"?) or an argument about whether something is that(is the eye a “design”? in which case we again have to determine what we mean by “design” so we can assess whether the eye qualifies?).
The people who are hellbent on taking the word “design” to imply intelligent design, are also hellbent on claiming biological entities are designs. You gain nothing by referring to these things by another term, in the eyes of these people. You are manifesting such a person in this discussion. If I refer to the eye as a natural contraption, do you feel like I have avoided the question of whether the eye could come to exist without intelligent design? Obviously not.
So the question can’t be avoided. In that case, the most sensible thing to do, at least in my experience, is to just grab the bull by the horns and agree that we should call some structure, or system, or other type of complex functional entity, a design. And then once we have agreed to just call them that, we can proceed to discuss what that implies about how it came to exist.
Here the job of biologists is to explain how evolution works to produce “designs” without any apparent “intelligent agency” being required to facilitate this result.
Evolution by natural selection.
I don’t think any program is relevant to the point I am making.
Then you’re simply begging the question if you’re going to claim evolution had to be designed. An objection that consists of nothing more than a blind assertion isn’t a very good one.