I have been trying to understand this concept, and this is the first time I’ve read it in a way that I can wrap my brain around. To me, “design” implies or at least hints at intent.
Since evolution cannot have “intent” per se, it must, when recognized, be the appearance or illusion of intent.
Is that universally understood in this environment? That to use the word “DESIGN” is really short for “appearance of design”? If so, does it not seem that it should always be referenced in this way? Is this not teleonomy?
Every other time I have seen it (the word “design”) used, it seems to blatantly overstep the boundaries set here. It may be considered the reverse of what is set forth here, but if one cannot invoke an intelligence within a scientific discussion to bolster a theological position, then one should also not be able to invoke an intelligence without properly identifying it (as you have here) as an illusion, to bolster a materialistic position, right?
And, thank you Patrick, for agreeing to tutor me!! 