The design argument is so hated and feared by so-called secularists that their objectivity toward the issue is lost. If design were shown to be the case, what would be the consequence? Not much in the way of theology. That would constitute a proof of the existence of god, and design arguments can’t do that, and shouldn’t intend to. To me the term ‘Intelligent Design’ has confused the issue: we should distinguish ‘intelligent design’ and ‘naturalistic design’, and probably find two cases in ‘intelligent design’: 1. design from a specified agent or designer, theistic or otherwise, and 2. design in nature the looks like it is intelligent, using a metaphor. The ambiguity of the last two is often exploited by ID proponents. The detection of design in never an argument for the existence of god, so I find the hysteria of the darwinists/atheists/so-called secularists to be misplaced.
All this said, WHEE shows some pretty spectacular evidence for design in world history, but at the same time some very spectacular evidence for a ‘naturalistic’ system of some kind. The ‘contradiction’ can be resolved in considering the absolutely hardest case: design in the form of art emerging in the ‘system’ in question. This requires a naturalistic account of the evolution of art and this is not possible in darwinian terms.
It is important to see the logic of regress here and wonder why the argument is so heated. Take the recent ‘something from nothing’ debates. In the end you have the problem of explaining ‘design’-suggestive ‘natural’ productions as the result of something from nothing either before or after the big bang. What’s the difference? After a while the antinomial character of this futile debate echoes its Kantian commentary, which is the final resting place for design issues.
IN the nonce, the ‘design’ issue surely has a ‘natural’ version in a theory of teleological processes in nature, or outside of nature.