Is this Intelligent Design or not?

But the end-result of a radio reciever was not even imagined,
let alone accomodated for in the original set-up.If a perfect oscillator had been produced, I might say that
you had a point ... but it wasn't.The selection criterion was 'output of an oscillating signal'
but the evolutionary process applied developed this by evolving
radio reception capability (most likely thru random mutation)
and finding that it was receiving an oscillating signal
from elsewhere.Not only is it unexpected by the experimental set-up, it's
what creationists would call IC if it occurred in nature,
after all how could the thing work as a radio-receiver if even
one of the transistors were connected wrong or there was not
antenna.

But that's the point being made ... given a number of
components that can produce an effect, time, reproduction
and chance mutation can have effects which were not intended
and yet, in hind sight, give the impression of design.The circuit (in terms of the precise connection pathways)
evolved via a process which is modelled upon the supposed
evolutionary scenario. And the end result utilises a 'component'
as an antenna which did not originally have that intended
purpose.Selection criteria aimed at a particular result, actually had
an unexpected result.And something VITAL to the operation of the circuit as a receiver
was originally in place for a completely other purpose.Remove a component and the thing doesn't work as a receiver ...
but it did evolve.Doesn't that cast some doubt on IC as a concept related to design?And again, abiogenesis and evolution are not the same.