Yes, Design is a Mechanism- Refuting Evotard "logic"
v. de•signed, de•sign•ing, de•signs
1. To conceive or fashion in the mind; invent: design a good excuse for not attending the conference.
2. To formulate a plan for; devise: designed a marketing strategy for the new product.
3. To plan out in systematic, usually graphic form: design a building; design a computer program.
4. To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect: a game designed to appeal to all ages.
5. To have as a goal or purpose; intend.
6. To create or execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner.
Ever hear of the "House that Jack built"? The story I remember is that Jack didn't have a plan and the resulting house exemplified that fact. His mechanism for building a house was "willy-nilly".
Edison had a mechanism for his designs- "99% persperation, 1% inspiration".
Which was different than Tesla, who had a better mechanism for his- actual research and development.
Therefore it would appear even the mechanism of design has different mechanisms.
And again- without direct observation or designer input the ONLY possible way to make a reasonable inference about the mechanism used is by studying the design. Therefore knowing the mechanism is not a pre-requisite for inferring design. It is, however, a driving force to understand the design- find a specific design mechanism. Then test it. It may turn out to be the mechanism. You never know until you try.
Even though design is a mechanism, there are specific design mechanisms that apply to ID.
I have already mentioned Dr Spetner's "built-in responses to environmental cues", artificial selection and directed chemistry.
Directed chemistry refers to the software that runs the show in living organisms. DNA is not the software. It carries it.
To add to the list we also have a targeted search- which as I have also mentioned before- which is exemplified in the paper "Evolving Inventions" SciAm Feb 2003.
IOW only an imbecile who cannot read a dictionary would say that design is not a mechanism.