He's probably talking about microevolution, which is a non-arguable fact of life. Macroevolution is an ideological doctrine and a quasi-religioius belief system.
Michael Denton's "Nature's Destiny," on intelligent Design, says this:
"it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes.This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law.
Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies."
Behe, the chief defence witness at Dover, has this to say about evolution:
I didn't intend to "dismiss" the fossil record--how could I "dismiss" it? In fact I mention it mostly to say that it can't tell us whether or not biochemical systems evolved by a Darwinian mechanism. My book concentrates entirely on Darwin's mechanism, and simply takes for granted common descent.
Behe and Denton, and Dembski, the three scientific leaders of the ID movement all disagree with you.
Oh, and evolutionary biologists use math and probability theory all the time. There are papers that are full of almost nothing else. Math is a tool used by all scientists. All the mathematical arguments against evolution that I've ever seen are vacuous in their relationship with the real world. They set up a straw man, that doesn't relate to anything any biologist believes happened, and knock it down. Why don't you present your very best one. It is up to you to substantiate your arguments, not up to us to do research to back up your argument. (BTW, don't bother presenting anything about abiogenesis; that is a different field, you need to present something that knocks down evolution, not the origin of life if you want to discredit evolution)