In the absence of evidence of guidance then obviously the default should be that there is no guidance. Undetectable guidance is indistinguishable from a lack of guidance - and for pragmatic purposes no different. This is not dogma - it is simple parsimony
The problem with “guidance” is that it is in itself too vague to be useful. Are, for instance, mass extinctions a crude form of guidance or disasters that interfere with accomplishing the objective of the supposed guidance? Either view is possible. Developing specific ideas about guidance that lead to predictive hypotheses that are then confirmed would be a good start.
Attempts at probabilistic arguments are not a good idea since useful probabilities cannot be practically calculated. The probability-based arguments that have been produced are merely deceptive (intentionally or not) apologetics.