Peter - Thanks for staring this thread. I take exception to two of your statements in your first post.
1. "If we take design to be the production of a system which is
suited to a particular purpose (note: not designed for that
purpose, but the result is suited to it) then we do not
require any intelligence behind the design."
In the world of software or systems engineering we frequently borrow a concept "...which is suited to a particular purpose..." and adapt it for another purpose. However, the fact that we use it in its original or a modified form does not justify your statement that "... then we do not require any intelligence behind the design."
Indeed, whenever an artifact is used for a purpose other than that of it's original designer, we still benefit from the intelligence of that designer. It saves us time trying to design something that will work as well.
Since I used the term 'artifact' above, this would only include human designed things. And even when you glue popsickle sticks together to make something, you gain from the intelligence of the designer of the versitle popsickle stick. But, as a beliver in ID, I further say that when you use aluminum or any chemical compound to make something, you are benefiting from the intelligent design that went into creating aluminum, etc.
2. You say "An algorithm that produces electrical circuits or landscape drawings is performing design, but has no intelligence behind it."
Any algorithm that does "design" has merely been designed by it's creator with some part of the knowledge base (intelligence) of the designer embedded in the algorithm.
Your conclusions in the posting are based on, what IMHO are erroneous assumptions. Frankly, I surprized that no one challanged them previously.
Sincerely,
Fred
™ Version 4.2