Are you being intentionally dense? The mathematics of evolution have as much to do with religion or biology as arithmetic. It is not a biological concept. Just because 2 eggplants + 2 eggplants = 4 eggplants does not make arithmetic a biological concept either. Mathematics says nothing about biology, science, or religion, though many other fields use mathematics as a tool. You do not get to pick and choose which parts of mathematics you like; it is an axiomatic system and if one part is wrong, you pretty much have to discard the rest too.
If the mathematics upon which evolution is based was wrong, you could prove it in strict mathematical terms. Since you make a vague tinfoil plea instead, I'll assume it is because your assertion is baseless.
I am sure you have read examples of the statistical improbability of even one amino acid being able to spontaneously form itself.
As someone who was formerly a computational chemist and did these very calculations for profit, I can assure you that those supposed demonstrations of "statistical improbability" are laughably flawed. Anyone who conflates the size of a phase space with the probability of a point in that phase space has no business making prognostications about probability. Doubly so when using the former as an approximation of the latter has an error bound that dwarfs the resolution by dozens of orders of magnitude. To put it in terms you'll understand, it would be like doing arithmetic and inadvertently mixing up addition and multiplication, repeatedly.
As I have pointed out repeatedly, IF we accepted the probability model used in your example as generally correct, we could trivially compute from that model that all industrial chemistry is impossible. Your assertion has consequences that you cannot choose to ignore for the convenience of your belief.
Not only does one see a rejection of biology, but geology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, and mathematics.
Dembski calculated the odds at the Dover trial to be 90 percent against a slamdown of ID.
HUAH!