I’m going to clarify this a bit, by referencing a more common claim. It is often said that evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity of life we see. For example:
I think this is false. Here is why…
First of all, biological evolution depends on several things for which we have no good account (physical laws, abiogenesis or a first cell, etc.).
Second, the course of evolution depends on “stochastic” events we couldn’t have predicted, like the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs, and other “chance” events. We have no way of distinguishing between chance and providence. It seems almost certain that some of these contingent events were fundamentally important to produce what we see here. For example, both humans and chimps had the same starting point, but only we are anything like humans. Why are we different? Some combination of providence and chance.
Third, the claim of “sufficiency” is a universal negative claim about the nature of life, and science cannot usually make these sorts of claims. For evolution to be sufficient, every step along the way to us must have been possible to evolve without any providential inspiration of God. I’m not sure how we could possibly know this about everything that has evolved when we have not had (and will not have) ability to study in detail everything in the history of life that has been made.
Forth, the claim of “sufficiency” seems to be false because evolution depends on contingent events (e.g. that asteroid). They are unpredictable events that profoundly shape the final product of evolution, even though evolution itself has no account of how these events arise. So evolution seems obviously not to be a sufficient explanation for the diversity of life.
I can agree that it appears as if everything we see could have been produced by natural processes. However, I’m not sure how to distinguish between between God’s action and natural processes. God could have inspired a mutation here or there, but how would we know? It would look just like a natural mutation to us. How in the world could we know that it was a special mutation?
So yes, I do think God was necessary, for several reasons, and science has not ruled out God’s guidance in origins. Evolution is certainly not a “sufficient” explanation of life. However, it is not at all clear how he providentially governed evolution.
I could go on about how evolution is not “sufficient”, but this of course should be balanced that with fact that none of the ID arguments have been convincing to me either. Evolution is not sufficient to explain everything, but it certainly explains a lot. It seems more a matter of prior belief about God’s involvement than anything about the evidence. As I pointed out before, if God inspires a mutation, how could we possibly know He did? How could we establish that it was not a “natural” mutation?