The appearance of Design is not the fact of Design

And neither is it support for the Discovery Institute's intelligent Design concept. I am quite disappointed in this Huffington post by Ervin Laszlo. Not only does he repeat the ridiculous comment by Sir Fred Hoyle:

[the odds of evolution are the] "same as the probability that a hurricane blowing through a scrap-yard assembles a working airplane."

But then Laszlo does exactly what many intelligent design proponents do and change the definition of things to suit himself. He doesn't address the DI's concept of Intelligent Design, but changes Design to mean something different entirely. Then he continues with the usual "And our fine-tuned universe is entirely unlikely to have come about by chance." Yet does not offer any support for this idea.

The idea that Evolution is not following a deterministic path but conforming to the environment in ways that follow atomic and molecular interactions is not a new idea. But to slap a label of 'Design' on it is going too far. All he is doing to raising the level of the argument from the origin of life to the origin of the Universe. He hasn’t settled anything. He’s simply reverse the recent direction of anti-evolutionists trying to use molecular mechanisms to justify barely defined concepts like specified and irreducible complexity. Years ago it was complete organisms, like Man. Then moved to biological items, like the Eye. Lately it's bacterial flagellum and clotting factors that are the current rage. All equally unsupported by any evidence.

He’s raised the concept of physical properties into some sort of deliberate design. There is still no proof of a designer, no support that anything is actually designed, just wishful thinking. Design is not a necessary assumption, just as blind chance has not been an explanation of evolution for decade.