1. "Survival of the fittest leading to change of the phenotype" is a process that would seem to be inevitable, once one begins understands the first thing about genetics. This is more or less a mathematical inevitability.
2. It is clear from the fossil record that there has been a process of "evolution", where earlier species have given rise to later species in some way or another. This is a matter of "historical fact" - in as far as there are "historical facts".
3. The idea that "#2 is as a result of #1" is highly plausible, but cannot be established with the same degree of credibility as either #1 or #2. Personally, I accept this as a working hypothesis and do not seriously doubt it.
4. The idea that "#2 is a random and entirely unguided result of #1" is impossible to evaluate.
5. Any-one who disbelieves both in "God" and "2001-style alien intervention" has no choice but to accept this "strong evolution" hypothesis; but they do so not on a scientific basis - but as a result of their "atheistic faith choice".
6. Any-one who is open to the possibility that "God is real" or that "aliens might have intervened" cannot adopt this position so readily.
7. I believe that God is real. As to how much "Divine guidance" the blind process of natural selection needed, I have absolutely no idea. Given the "butterfly effect" God could have dramatic effects on the process while intervening in ways that were undetectably small.
8. It seems to me that deciding this matter is beyond the scope of human ability.