Well as mentioned previously, you have only Two Choices for HOW we (Universe/Us) are here: Nature (Unguided) vs Intelligent Design/GOD.
This is an interesting premise. I'd like to explore the implications.
At first, it appears helpful to Daniel's argument. If the two categories are distinct and do not overlap, then challenges to the Nature view would be evidence supporting the ID view. We'd have a Venn diagram with two, non-intersecting circles, either of which (but not both) would represent the state of affairs in the Universe.
However, the parenthetical (unguided) is an important addition. Why? Because we all agree that as some level, natural laws exist and inform our understanding of the world. By natural law, I merely mean the regular patterns we see around us - the kind of reliable "rules" we use daily to operate in the world. Non-controversial stuff like gravity or the laws of electricity.
If the Venn diagram has two distinct circles, we would simply point to those natural laws we accept and agree we are in the universe without God's guiding hand. Ah, but the parenthetical (unguided) allows a further distinction. Natural laws - or those rules we are calling natural laws - might in turn be authored, and hence guided.
In that case, all that we perceive as being part of the natural (unguided) scheme might really be a circle within the larger circle of "that's the way God created it." Note the asymmetry here. Anything I can find that is not explainable by natural law indicates a Creator, but anything I find which is explained by natural law still has to be shown to be unguided, for God may have hidden His mighty hand.
Our Venn diagram now looks like a big circle (Creator God) and a smaller circle entirely enclosed within it. No matter how large we make the "seems to follow rules" circle, we can never decide there isn't yet some portion of the larger circle to discover - as yet unknown.
Is this, then, "checkmate atheists?" No. The reason is because we have no way to identify things that are not amenable to a natural law explanation. While we cannot say that God hasn't just decided to make the world appear this way, anything that seems supernatural just gets grafted on as an alteration of the theory and becomes "natural." From this perspective, God or no-God appears exactly the same. There's no particular reason to accept one or the other.
But now Daniel has introduced a further hurdle. Instead of saying (as many other believers have) that evolution is true, but just another example of God using natural means (which He created) to accomplish His purpose, Daniel has chosen a positive assertion to challenge the idea of evolution. Instead of accepting whatever discovery and understanding we claim, and then suggesting God did it anyhow, he is adopting the story from a religious text as a positive fact about the world - and here his argument becomes vulnerable to the same testing any scientific theory would. He has entered a different arena and wishes to do battle on different grounds.
The structure of the argument is now different. Proving evolution wrong is no longer evidence that creationism is right. It's just evidence that evolution is wrong. We no longer have an either/or Venn diagram. He can only make progress, not by disproving another theory, but by proving his own. This is because there might be a third, or fourth, or any number of hybrid theories out there - we have abandoned the God/no God schema.
This new set-up allows me to ask questions about the creation theory. For example, "How did God do it?" or, "Can we duplicate His method?" or "What testable predictions does your theory offer us?" All the usual stuff. It's a huge burden.
