"Actually, he does have a point: human intervention has largely obsoleted natural selection in the parts of nature that we can access."
Not really. First, he's saying that the entire process of evolution, from the beginning of the first cell on this planet all the way up to the present and including all species of life therein, has some conscious force or will driving it, and nothing could be farther from the truth.
Second, even in the case of domesticated species, selection by humans doesn't really replace natural selection in its entirety; it's more accurate to say that it merely supplements it. Yes, we're selecting only the plants/animals that have traits that are useful to us to breed, but natural selection still plays a role. If, for instance, a livestock animal is born with a weaker immune system and succumbs to infection and dies before it reaches sexual maturity, that's natural selection in action. Or in the case of crops, it might be a dry year and one part of a farmer's crop isn't as drought-tolerant as the rest and they die before they can produce seeds. That's also natural selection doing its stuff. It's more than just who gets killed by predators and eaten; that's one part of natural selection, and we've certainly taken care of that in the species we've domesticated, but there are still plenty of other domains of fitness that natural selection works on that we don't.
So no, he's still an idiot with no points and no idea about what he's talking about.