Designed

Recently, my brother Kris made the observation that in wildlife documentaries the narrator will invariably state that an animal is "designed" for their habitat.  This statement generally falls among multiple references to how these animals developed via evolution.  Like with documentaries, non-fiction books on wildlife make the same "observations."  The last few weeks, I've read a couple of books on Bighorn Sheep (Ovis Canadensis) where similar statements were made, and currently I am reading The Wolf: Ghost Hunter by Daniel LeBoeuf.  

In one section, LeBoeuf writes that after "millions of years of evolution and adaptation, wolves have become skilled hunters" (pg. 68), but in another section he writes that a "wolf's legs are strong but slender-boned.  While large cats have thick legs that enable them to make short bursts of speed and to hold and crush prey, wolves' legs were designed for speed and endurance" (pg. 56).  

According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, design is defined as: "to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan", "to conceive and plan out in the mind", "to have as a purpose", "to devise for a specific function or end", "to conceive or execute a plan", and "to draw, lay out, or prepare a design".  In which of these definitions does chaos or happenstance appear? Can evolution "have as a purpose" the design of a wolf's leg? Can evolution "create" anything "according to plan"?

Also according to Merriam-Webster, the applicable definition of evolution is the "historical development of a biological group (as a race or species)", a "theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations".

Question: What animal or group of animals decides what needs to be modified? How do they survive long enough to be modified? It literally makes no logical sense, although the predominant number of scientists today will use complex language to muddy the waters; when broken down to the simplest form, does evolution make sense? 

Note also that the number one definition in the Merriam-Webster dictionary for evolution is "one of a set of prescribed movements."  One set of "prescribed" movements? Prescribe means "to lay down as a guide, direction, or rule of action", "to specify with authority", and "to lay down a rule". 

How can evolution, which is treated as the sheer happenstance of circumstances, be guided? Who sets the guide? Another sub-definition of evolution is "a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state."  This definition was applied indirectly to society, but it is often applied to "scientific" evolution as well (think of terms like "evolved higher beings").  Why do we assume that if evolution is purely by happenstance and that there is no intelligence involved that it would automatically go from simple to more complex, or "worse" to "better"? How often do societies actually do so? 

It seems that even in the evolutionist's overwhelming desire to explain away God, some still logical part of their brain realizes the reality of an intelligent designer and they subconsciously understand that for something like the legs of a wolf to operate correctly a design must have taken place.