I think a lot of confusions with evolution would end if we just separate two completely different aspects of it.

The math theory, that does not need evidence, since it can be derived from set theory and formal logic, and it can be tested using any number of computer algorithms, as simple as John Conway’s Game of Life. If the logic is consistent, then the theory is true, regardless of how it affects biology.

## The biological evolution theory, which says that for the some time ago certain strings of hydrocarbons fit the mathematical model and started evolving, which can be tested by fitting modern and historical evidence to the mathematical model(which is already proven)

This is akin to the problems people had with heliocentric models of the universe. There’s also two aspects here:

Mathematical: If two bodies attract according to given rules(law of gravity), they can orbit each other.

Physical: It seems that bodies attract each other, so there must be something orbiting something here.

Now any creationist argument against evolution of heliocentric solar system would have to bring in evidence against the Physical/Biological parts of it, NOT mathematical. Unless someone brave is ready to admit that either the postulates of math do not lead to those theorems, or that the postulates of math cannot be used to model the real world, opposers are stuck with arguing that the model fits the evidence, not that the model is faulty.