i'd have to disagree with you about the following comments however, and think you need to defend the statement rather than just assert it: "to assume that human constructs aren't simple manifestions of the same physics that governs everything else is arrogant beyond belief."

the problem is that you need to get more clear about what you mean by "the same physics" because every physics that I know has no room for teleological concepts like "goal" or "intention" or "aim" or "motivation." And what exactly is a physical need? Do rocks have physical needs? Do all physical things have physical needs? If not, then what is it about some physical systems that gives them "needs" Are needs pervasive or rare?

Engineers rely on scientists to puzzle out the regularities of reality. It is the characterization of those regularities that engineers rely on to produce reliable systems that result in technology. Those characterizations offer a means to build bridges that don't fail, airplanes that fly, medicines that work, etc. However, engineers more than most live in a world of reality as well. If their designs don't work, people die. This creates a sensibility to the complexity of design that many people don't often face. It gives engineers a perspective on design that results in humility. The complexity of details that are so important to functional systems is daunting. Relying on chance is not an option. It takes all an engineer can muster to create something that will work. When observing biological systems all design engineers are in awe. Those artifacts absolutely shout design. To attribute those systems to chance is ludicrous. The beauty, functionality, and purpose we see in biological systems can only be attributed to some sort of intelligence.

http://evolutionarydesign.blog...

I think that the "intent" that's inherent to design is physically definable as the sum of expressed bias toward satisfying a pre-existing physical need.

This is an acceptable scientific definition because it applies to all objects that express a predominant inclination, and to assume that human constructs aren't simple manifestions of the same physics that governs everything else is arrogant beyond belief.

"An engineer said it… so, " nuff said "

-most any ole evolutionary biologist