This appears to be a reasonable answer, and an honest attempt at discussion. That being the case, I'm going to drop the snark.
I disagree with you that evolution depends on abiogenisis. Variation and selection exist and occur in the presence of imperfect replicators. I agree there is no reason to preclude Divine Intervention, but we have no evidence for it, so we must assume it is false, until such time it is demonstrated otherwise. We can only assume Divine Intervention after ALL other possibilities are ruled out. "Either evolution or Divine Intervention" is a false dichotomy.
This example has been done before, but it's easy and recognizable: Darwin's finches have beaks that change size during periods of drought. When rain returns, beak sizes regress to the mean. If, however, a localized area within a portion of the finches' range experience an extended period of climate change, the beak sizes of the affected would be permanent, isolating that small subpopulation from the rest of the species. Variations in the subpop would be more dynamic than in the larger population, and there is a good chance that a few generations would see the subpopulation reproductively isolated from the main population, and would develop and adapt independently from that point forward.
Abiogenisis is not required for the above example. All evolution requires is the initial spark. When your car battery is dead, to use another analogy, get yourself some jumper cables. But once the engine is running, the jumper cables can be removed, and you are free to drive wherever you want. What jump-started life on earth is currently a matter of speculation, be it Divine Intervention, alien seedlings, cosmic organics, naturally reacting hydrocarbons, or some other phenomenon entirely. But AFTER THAT STARTING POINT, when the reaction was in motion, variation and selection took over. They are simple to describe, fully observable, and they are the ONLY forces for which we have evidence.
Well obviously I disagree with the above. Specifically your last point that 'ALL ofther possibilities are ruled out'. Once a Creator has been established, it must always be a consideration. Specifically, let's take the example of a new gene. Even a small one would be almost impossible to arise by chance. So what is more reasonable then, that the Creator designed it or that a chance which is more unlikely than winning the lottery a dozen times in a row made it? Seems to me that creation is a more reasonable answer once the existence of a Creator has been established. That is what intelligent design is about essentially. If one can show that the evolution of something is so unlikely that it is almost impossible, then one must assume design not a stochastic evolutionary process.
Also the stipulation you make for intelligent design is totally unfair. Certainly evolution could not pass such a test and it is doubtful that any scientific theory could pass a test where ALL other possibilities have been ruled out.
Darwin's finches have beaks that change size during periods of drought. When rain returns, beak sizes regress to the mean. If, however, a localized area within a portion of the finches' range experience an extended period of climate change, the beak sizes of the affected would be permanent, isolating that small subpopulation from the rest of the species. Variations in the subpop would be more dynamic than in the larger population, and there is a good chance that a few generations would see the subpopulation reproductively isolated from the main population, and would develop and adapt independently from that point forward.
The above is what I mean about the tautology of evolutionary theory. You are assuming that something will happen according to evolutionary theory and using it as proof of evolution. What has been observed is the regression to mean.
BTW - the finches show quite well a big problem with evolutionary theory. The quick changes due to environment and the 'return to mean' show that organisms adapt without mutation.