> the creationist would say that the design of the foot proves a designer was necessary for the very foot that made that footprint.
So you're saying that if you saw footprints in snow you'd think that God put them there?
I hope you are just being a smart-alec.
If the person I was addressing could recognize that footprints were evidence that a foot made them, due to the diminishing likelihood that they just formed all by themselves, then he/she should be able to recognize that the foot, (not God, the foot) that made the footprint was even less likely to have come into being through a chain of accidents.
He could see the design of the footprint was obviously left by a foot, so it should not be too hard to recognize that the astronomically more complex foot is evidence of a designer.