I am a Biological scientist, and no biologists is insisting in their professional work that “God is not part of this process”, the definition you try to saddle upon Biologists is your own invention. Detection of a ‘guide’ or a ‘direction’ to evolution is not a question applicable to the scientific method.
Could evolution be the product of God? Of course it is. Every facet of creation is the product of God, and God called for the oceans and the land to bring forth life, and that life is incapable of staying exactly the same, and must, by necessity, evolve.
No, it is not. What you are defining as “evolution” is not the evolution being presented. You have a bias. You believe in a God who is guiding the process, albeit invisibly, undetectibly (is that a word?).
Evolution, as it is presented today, requires agreement to “common descent” (go to Talk.Origins). The origin of the single original life form is addressed only insofar as they are certain that some form of abiogenesis occurred, but they shy away from how. From that point on, all change is random (defined as “no intervention necessary”) and controlled by natural selection. So, I am not “saddling” a definition that the industry does not itself hold.
And, just because you can work side by side with a person who denies the Creator, does not mean that the two viewpoints are compatible. May I state again, “science” which excludes the management of the universe by the Mind that made it and controls it is not compatable with the biblical perspective. My response was to the issue as to whether God used evolution to create the life forms we now see. While He may have used adaptation and selection, He did not use an unguided, undirected process. The evolutionary biologist folks want us to admit that intervention is unecessary.
And, yes, you are right, Biological science is productive. Not all biology is based upon “evolution”. But, that which is based upon evolution as described in Talk.Origins may be productive. Then, so is the Playboy mansion, so is China, so is Christopher Hitchens. Are they compatable with biblical Christianity? If you mean, can they coexist? Then, sure. If you mean are they based upon the same assumptions, have the same underpinnings, express the same intentions? Then, no, they are not.
Your remarks with respect to whether that “life is incapable of staying exactly the same...” is your speculation. Even the scientific method would not support your conclusion that nothing could arise in the future that could begin to make a life form stay static. All you can do is say, thus far we observe that this is the case.