This problem is known in the philosophy of science as the underdetermination problem. Multiple hypotheses can fit the data. If we don't assign a priori probabilties to hypotheses, we will never reach a conclusion. For example, the hypothesis that (a) Stephen Hawking lived till 2018 against (b) There was a massive conspiracy by his relatives and friends to take his existence after his death in 1985. (That was an actual conspiracy theory). No quantity of evidence can refute the second theory. We can always increase the number of conspirators. The only reason we choose (1) over (2) is the implausibility of (2).
There are a few questions on which the evidence is really one-sided - like the common ancestry of huamns and chimps.
What is your assessment of the probability that some kind of Third Level Explanation is needed for such events?
There is a tiny error in the paper. It mentions in one place that multicellular life has existed fro 500 million years on Earth. That is not correct. I suppose you have mistaken the Cambrian Explosion which happened just before 500 million years ago, with the origin of multicellular life.
Are you a Christian? Otherwise, I don't think anyone can trust Lee Strobel. Did he mention Behe's evidence for common descent :
Um, the lines of moral agency are blurry. For example, would you consider an chimpanzee to have moral agency? A gorilla? An orangutan? A gibbon? An elephant? A dolphin?
Well the probability might be even lower, according to Eugene Koonin.
Evolution might have optimized intelligence, if there were no trade-offs.
If you were in India (1.37 billion population) what would your position be.