In a sense I agree with Steve ( not that he would thank me for it !) in that I understand that the theory of evolution is undirected and unguided , so I suppose that if you make God instigator or hidden mover in it, it becomes a different theory. And I can see how it can be viewed as having your cake and eating it.   I understand that Darwin made mention of a creator at the end of origins , but later wrote to a friend regretting the "penteteuchal" reference. Not that I would agree with it, but in theory why should not theists adapt Darwinism to be directed and guided.......though , presumably, it could not then be truly called Darwinian evolution.               Steve alleges that having an uncreated creator is contrary to the " laws of nature " but unless you are somewhat selective with what those laws are, it is the general theory of evolution that is contrary to what is known from observable, testable, repeatable science.   And while a supernatural, creator who called all things into existence, including those natural laws cannot be proven , I fail to see how that can be more illogical than believing in a universe from nothing via no one.   The fairies and leprechauns are just as much, and more in your backyard !