That's precisely evolutionist thinking. These people are so vehement about natural selection that they totally reject the slightest idea of scientifically-unprovable power to take part in the process. Again, I would ask, why such a strong rejection?
Because it is superfluous. This is science. It is a scientific theory used to explain the world. You do not include divinity in science, it will completely mess up the whole field. If you include unscientifically proven entities into a scientific theory, where would we be?
Imagine me explaining how water evaporates. "The water molecules get their energy from their surroundings, until one of them achieves enough energy to break off from the main aggregation and escapes into the atmosphere". Then i add "But we must remember, that water and energy alone is although enough, there is actually also an invisible flying pixie elephant helping it out. You can't see it, but it is there. you must have faith."
Its a cop out, a submissive nod to other forces that seek to subvert and add in unnecessary elements into a field of study.
You can document humans improving their methods in a pseudo natural selection way, but there is no documentation of any other outside influence biological evolution (barring the past 2-3 thousand years).
Walking away supporting both from each camps does not make you the most correct. It just means you just had your pie and ate it, ignoring the glaring imcompatibilities between both sides. It also indicates that you aren't well learned in the subject and merely wish to have this issue resolved comfortably within your own mind, nevermind the context or truth of it.
I know you don't like Dawkins, but i'm going to quote him again anyway. "When two opposing points of view are being equally strongly expressed, the truth does not necessarily lie in the middle. One side can simply be wrong."