From the language used by Nicholas Wade, there doesn’t seem to be much difference between evolution and an Intelligent Designer. Consider his characterization of evolution (almost a person, not merely a process) in his recent mini-review of a book about moths:
Every feature of a butterfly or moth, throughout its life from egg to adult, has been shaped over millions of years of evolution for specific purposes.
A moth on which evolution has lavished a remarkable degree of protective care is Oxytenis modestia.
As an adult, the Oxytenis moth resembles a leaf, but even here evolution’s inventiveness is not an end.
The distance between “specific purpose” and “design” in my mind is not very great, if not nonexistent. (Is Wade secretly an IDer?)
Other times, though, Wade speaks as if the variations seen on moths are not due to evolution at all, but rather to a conscious decision or effort of the moth:
Many butterfly and moth species try to pretend they are the least nutritious objects in the forest. This generally means imitating a piece of bird excrement if one is a caterpillar, and a dead leaf when one reaches adulthood.
Several butterflies practice a clever combination of camouflage and conspicuousness.
I’ve been trying hard to grow claws and wings for some time. Maybe I just don’t have a sufficiently moth-like drive to succeed?