[David Sklansky]

Even the most hard core creationist, with half a brain, admit that some changes occur due to survival of the fittest. DNA guarantees that. If there is a designer involved, it is obviously indirect in many cases.

But what about traits that are particularly well adapted, and there is yet no obvious path to that trait through mere mutation and survival of the fittest? I'm no expert, but I'm sure many, if not most, of the traits of living things fit that description. Evolutionists have little doubt that the fact that they can't pinpoint how those traits evolved is not strong evidence against their general theory. They are sure evolution somehow caused those traits rather than an intelligent designer. What they won't admit publicly though, maybe even to themselves, is that their certainty does not make sense unless they are also certain that there is no such thing as an intelligent designer. That last statement is a mathematical fact.

Say, for the sake of argument that human's immune system has, as of yet, not been explained by the same evolutionary logic that polar bear's white coat's have. If there was any reasonable chance that there was a designer out there who is omnipotent, and sometimes directly intervenes, then that would be the more likely explanation for the immune system. (Again I'm stipulating it is presently a big puzzle.) Baye's Theorem. The argument that so many things have eventually been explained via evolution isn't strong enough to make it a favorite over an intelligent designer. At least in some cases. You can only lay big odds on evolution if you are also willing to lay big odds against the existence of an entity that EVER designs anything directly. Because if he sometimes does, he likely designed the immune system or whatever.

Thus the underlying assumption of all who believe that all the traits of living things evolved, is that it is very improbable that there is a God who directly designs anything. Are Catholics comfortable with that?