I was reading this Wikipedia page on design. General design, not specifically ID.
Philosophies for the purpose of designs
In philosophy, the abstract noun “design” refers to a pattern with a purpose. Design is thus contrasted with purposelessness, randomness, or lack of complexity.
To study the purpose of designs, beyond individual goals (e.g. marketing, technology, education, entertainment, hobbies), is to question the controversial politics, morals, ethics and needs such as Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. “Purpose” may also lead to existential questions such as religious morals and teleology. These philosophies for the “purpose of” designs are in contrast to philosophies for guiding design or methodology.
Often a designer (especially in commercial situations) is not in a position to define purpose. Whether a designer is, is not, or should be concerned with purpose or intended use beyond what they are expressly hired to influence, is debatable, depending on the situation. Not understanding or disinterest in the wider role of design in society might also be attributed to the commissioning agent or client, rather than the designer.
That was an interesting sentence: “Design is thus contrasted with purposelessness, randomness, or lack of complexity.” There are some things in nature which are random, such as radioactive decay, and there are some things which are effectively random, such as whether a raindrop is going to land in this square or that one next, but can the materialist really maintain that everything, everywhere, at all times, is random and purposeless? It seems like materialists ought to at least be agnostic on the question. Pretending to have a conclusive answer is absurd. Theistic evolutionists have found a way to finesse this question, maintaining a belief in god while genuflecting at the altar of materialism just enough to satisfy the scientific community.