I have no doubt that God did create the Universe and everything in it, including us and, so it appears, including evolution.
As for "proof", there are several traditional proofs offered up by ancient philosophers, and I'd say any of them will serve.
But we should remember that the subject here is science, not metaphysics or theology, and in science the first rule is: natural explanations for natural processes.
In other words, science rejects as a matter of definition of the word "science" any reference to God or other supernatural explanations.
That's why I say, just as soon as you inject God into any scientific discussion, then it is no longer scientific.
It is something else: religion, theology or metaphysics, etc., but not science, because science can't deal with anything other than the natural world.
“natural explanations for natural processes.”
That is your presupposition in a nutshell. God says He created the world by His command. You are applying a natural explanation for what God says is supernatural.
As to God ‘creating’ evolution, where do you get that? Where is there a hint in the Bible that God created evolution? [I’m referring to macroevolution.] Are you saying, in effect, ‘Of course there’s no hint of God creating evolution in the Bible, but I believe He did it anyway.’ Is that your bottom line?
Look at it like this: if God used evolution, the Genesis acct wd read quite differently. I.e.: when it came to man, it wd say that God took a semian-likie creature and formed it into a man. Subsequently the Bible wd not refer to man as made in God’s image but rather in the image of whatever ape-like creature He has used.
Iow, it’s not both/and; it’s either/or.
Did you know, btw, that the Bible actually does speak of evolution? It does, in so many words. Here’s the passage:
“3 Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.” 5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. 7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.” 2 Peter 3:3-8
It’s all right there in that passage. Evolution’s faulty assumption: “For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.”
The first non-natural event which evolutionists overlook: “For [a]when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water”
The second world-wide event overlooked by evolutionists:
“through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.”
& finally, the issue of time, indicating that God’s time is unique to Him: “But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.”
Iow, evolutionists assume the natural world has operated under knowable, calculable conditions for billions of yrs. The apostle Peter says in order to believe this, one has to overlook 2 events: the creation of the universe by God’s word, & the Genesis flood. Christian evolutionists have to make one further assumption: that there is something divine about the animal-type that gave rise to man. How else cd man be both descended from animals & reflect God’s divine image?
Oh, & before you all rush in & claim that man & apes evolved along different lines, here are the words of Darwin himiself:
“There can, consequently, hardly be a doubt that man is an off-shoot from the Old World simian stem; and that under a genealogical point of view he must be classified with the catarhine [Old World monkeys] division . . . But a naturalist, would undoubtedly have ranked as an ape or a monkey, an ancient form which possessed many characters common to the catarhine and platyrhine monkeys, other characters in an intermediate condition, and some few, perhaps, distinct from those now found in either group. And as man from a genealogical point of view belongs to the catarhine or Old World stock, we must conclude, however much the conclusion may revolt our pride, that our early progenitors would have been properly thus designated.”
1. Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man,Chapter Six, On the Affinities and Genealogy of Man:Rank of Man in the Natural System, Sixth Edition, edited under Encyclopedia Britannica, Great Books of the Western World, Vol.49, Darwin, William Benton Publishers, 1952, pp.335-336. Darwin further stated this belief on pp.337, “We have seen that man appears to have diverged from the catarhine [African and far eastern monkeys] or Old World division of the Simiadae [monkeys and apes], after these had diverged from the New World division.”
http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number9/Darwin9.htm#N_1_