Evolution and an intelligent designer

Hello Dr. Abraham

I enjoyed talking to you today at the open day, even if it wasn't on the topics it was intended for (:
I'm not sure I was able to make myself fully clear.
The fact that the world 'responds' to our investigation (in that our predictions often come true) proves that we have adequate tools [at least to some extent] to grasp it. This sounds reasonable to me and can also be explained in principle through adaptation of the system at the level of species evolution and statistical learning at the level of the individual.
I just came to deny (and maybe you agree with me) the explanatory power of the term force that refers to the laws of nature.
For example, any 'high' phenomenon that we describe and try to explain by reduction to the basic laws of matter – let's say we eventually arrive at the Standard Model and the fundamental forces. According to my [painfully poor] understanding of physics, the fundamental forces ultimately describe an interaction in a certain pattern between certain particles. So if we call one the 'strong force' and the other the 'weak force', these are just names that symbolize an interaction in a certain pattern, and in other words, relationships between phenomena. If you never meant otherwise [I got that impression from the book 'True and Stable'], I retract my words…

The second topic I wanted to talk about but we didn't have time.
In your book 'God Plays Dice' [I read it quite a while ago – I hope I'm accurate] you present the argument that in the estimated time period from the origin of life to the appearance of advanced species, the evolutionary process, if random, is completely improbable. On the basis of this you want to infer the existence of some intelligent designer who 'plays a role' in the process.
As I understand it, the way of science is to collect observations, find a common denominator, and define a generalizing law and then empirically test the predictions that follow from it. And to the extent that the predictions are confirmed, we will hold on to the theory and to the extent that we will not make certain corrections, etc. Without going into the fact that the theory of evolution differs in several respects from the usual formulation of laws in science, if the theory is not reasonable to explain the development of species, we must conclude that we lack information about the environmental conditions or the precise genetic replication mechanism, and if there are too many holes in the theory, we may ultimately assume that the theory is not good enough and abandon it. On the other hand, I really do not understand what the meaning of an intelligent designer is. For me, it is like saying, I am not abandoning the theory, but since there are holes in it, I assume that there is another factor (or several such) that influences the process and in the meantime I do not identify it or the mechanism by which it operates, so I will call it X.
In science and, in my opinion, in rational and parsimonious thinking, we assume that the aforementioned X is not a new law of nature but a mechanism that is supposed to be consistent with the laws known to us and perhaps even derived from them in a way that we do not yet know how to formulate (very robust evidence is needed to assume, through observation of 'higher' phenomena such as developed organisms, a violation of the basic laws of nature). So if 'intelligent designer' is just a new (and misleading, it must be said) name for the aforementioned X, then I tend to agree, but if by 'intelligent designer' you mean an X that is disconnected from the lawfulness that we assume underlies all phenomena known to us, then there is a leap here that I have difficulty agreeing with.

I would appreciate your learned response.
I hope I was able to clarify myself properly and sorry for the length.
Thank you very much.
And good Sabbath