Done with Intelligent Design?

After some discussions with colleagues, consultation of Google and blogs, and having read something by Stephen Jay Gould (and especially his NOMA principle) I now think I understand a bit about evolution theory. Gould makes it clear for me that the evolution of species and the "random" mutation of genes follows paths that are determined by on the one hand the innate tendency to survive in combination with genes mutation, and on the other hand the possibilities and opportunities given by the natural environment to the organism, giving advantage to certain mutations over others. This process doesn't follow a complete random process, but is influenced by the state of the organism, its fitness so to say at a particular moment in time, after many mutations and adaptations, and the state of the environment, determining what next mutation will win the battle to better survive. In a computer it is possible to imitate this process, of course on a very limited scale. Gould states that this has nothing to do with religious convictions. I'm not that far yet. But anyway I'm glad I don't have to be an atheist in order to believe that this is the case.

I also read that this scholar who allows me to accept (in scientific terms: "not to reject") evolution theory and keep my faith at the same time, has received much criticism from scholars who believe that he didn't understand, or, gave a misrepresentation of the "true and only" evolution theory. I think I have to do some further reading. I had a quick glance at Wikipedia's description of one of his fiercest critics, John Maynard Smith, where I read something about game theory, but I wasn't able to see any contradiction with Gould's work. I think I don't know enough about the material, and/or his critics were jealous because he was selling so well.

Enough so far.