Normally I oppose the use of the term evolution for it implies going from not so good to better. In fact it is a back and forth thing. And what is better is relative. For most plants and animals, we are not "better." It only looks that way from our narrow point of view. Evolution whether you think a God is involved or not is really about impressive complexity and that impressiveness includes the bloody side. It is because nature is so vicious that we are here and we are part of it. I will use the term anyway in this essay.
The suggestion that God guided evolution must go. That last paragraph shows why we cannot be the image of God and definitely are not the image of a wise one.
The idea of God guiding evolution assumes that it is mainly about evolving us! It clearly opposes science that seeks to help us by telling us that is not true. If it were true then why care about climate change? If we are going to always be here, or at least for several centuries, then why do science to avert global nuclear war? And assuming that evolution is about us makes no sense for we are not all at the one level of development. It leads only to putting the allegedly advanced before everybody else. It was the kind of thinking that led the Nazis into directing atrocities against the Jews.
Science notes that evolution is unimaginably slow. If evolution were rapid you might think it was designed by a God. But the speed is irrelevant. He could do it very slowly. Imagine your accounts person who has not done the rather uncomplicated Jan and Feb VAT return yet. A year later they might say they are taking their time. Unless you are stupid, you will see through that. The person is not doing his job. So beware that the notion that God slowly guides evolution is not just another dodge, an excuse. Science cannot let itself be taken advantage of by religionists.
Science as a whole sees nothing to indicate a divine plan or divine intervention. They are not saying necessarily that there is no God. They are saying if there is, he has left no marks. A God that does nothing is very close to one that does not exist!
Religion might say that God set up the natural processes to produce us. They say there is no reason to imagine God intervenes. They only say that for if an experiment may be meddled with by God then science can’t learn for it cannot trust experimental outcomes. It is tactical of them for they do indeed hold that God might hide his activity so he could be doing unseen miracles. And God setting up the natural processes would be intervention.
It is impossible to check it for believers cannot tell us what kind of model you would expect to show creatures appearing without a God willing it. There is no mention of how to test that God is influencing evolution. They cannot point to any clear mechanisms.
Science avoids explanations that are more complex than they need to be. Bringing in God makes it more complicated. Religion says, “But God is a being without composition, pure spirit. He is simple”. Not the point. He is activity or an agent and that is what matters. His actions would be complicated. Notice how a flower grows from a seed. That is very complicated. But to bring in God and saying he is the one really making it grow is doubling the complexity.
For science, any claim that cannot be tested is disregarded and treated as rubbish. Science may not call it rubbish but it says as much by its action. Science cannot test if a being with no parts or materiality can act and can create. So the simplicity answer is a deflection. It asks science to go against itself. And even if science would comply, the fact remains that we have complicated actions from this being. So God belief as in God being simple and God being an agent are in contravention of science.
Healers and magicians and the sort all think there is some force bigger than all guiding nature that can be harnessed.
The vast majority of spiritual seekers promote magic and fake science. Take healers. There will always be more mystic healers than there ever will be, say, Christians. When a religionist claims his religion does not oppose science, tell him that does not matter. He is still spiritual and part of the problem, he is an indirect cause of trouble.
Healers consciously depend on you fooling yourself that a coming after b means that b caused a. They are not honest in the first place. When you get rid of a wart or burn, you imagine that some power from them helped you. You imagine that it was not the natural processes in your body. Is it really good to have that little faith in your body’s healing mechanisms? If wishful thinking helps heal you, you are sacrificing how your body actually can help. That is foolish. A lot of damage has been done by religionists who engaged in science and who made leaps. They settled for miracles and divine agency when they met something they didn't know how to explain. It has cost billions, and of course lives, to address the problems.
You will meet the dodge, "We are not saying that some power helped you and not the natural processes. It was both. The power directed and used the natural processes."
Now a healer might claim to be sending you paranormal energy and using it on natural processes. But where do you draw the line? The energy should not need to be sent. Why can't it be in your cough mixture anyway? Healers clearly want praise for doing nothing.
We conclude that guided evolution is pure imagination. It is not acceptable as an opinion for it has terrible consequences.