Prominant Evolutionary Bioligist Admits Design in Nature?
"The idea that there is 'design' in nature is very appealing," Miller said. "People want to believe that life isn't purposeless and random. That's why the intelligent design movement wins the emotional battle for adherents despite its utter lack of scientific support. "To fight back, scientists need to reclaim the language of 'design' and the sense of purpose and value inherent in a scientific understanding of nature..."
I am not sure that Miller’s fellow physicalists / naturalists would want to admit 'bona fide' design as opposed to “apparent design” ala Richard Dawkins et al. To do so would seem to let the notion of teleology (i.e., purpose grounded in the nature of the thing itself) slip its nose under the tent. But how does a random and blind process with no view to the end, provide teleology in nature? In principle it seems that it can't. This will be interesting to watch develop.
Intelligent Design on the other hand is very comfortable with the idea of teleology--for Minds create or design for a reason and for that object to fulfill a certain function. For the most up to date defense of Intelligent Design in an accessible book, pick up a copy of The Design of Life by William Dembski and Jonathan Wells. For more on this book and these authors visit The Design of Life site.