Until someone has EVIDENCE for an alternative theory, natural selection is the best we have.
I had a friend demonstrate the TOE for me. He took an old pocket watch and placed it in a cloth bag. He laid it on a table and beat the bag with a hammer, destroying the watch inside.
He then shook the bag, and shook the bag, and then poured it onto the table. His statement still rings true..." there is a better chance of the watch coming out whole, than man having evolved from a spark in the ether..."
There is no "natural selection". There is just a "theory" about it...
the·o·ry (thē'ə-rē, thîr'ē) pronunciation n., pl. -ries.
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
-answers.com
I’m not arguing for or against “natural selection”. Natural selection is small “e” evolution.
Moreover there is nothing in the theory dependent upon “blind chance”, just genetic variation. Genetic variation can arise randomly, but with a high enough population over a long enough time, every possible SNP is attempted and only the neutral or beneficial ones tend to persist in the population. It is not a difficult concept, yet it seems to be the main bugaboo of creationists.