Evolution didn't predict that life would be based on a complex, specified code independent of the message carrier. That's creation's realm. Evolution long 'predicted' that life was simple, until it was found to be complex. Then evolution was merely re-interpreted to allow complex life.
And whether there is a 'must' in a supernaturally-created biology would depend on what supernatural creation you accept. The only one that meets your requirement for no 'must' is one that must consistenly operate through supernatural effects. That is your error.
Evidence is interpreted to be consistent w/ evolution. Geological formations are dated by the youngest fossils w/ older fossil inclusion being the assumed result of 'fossil reworking'.
It's the only way that evolution can be saved.
"Evolution long 'predicted' that life was simple, until it was found to be complex."
No it didn't. Where do you get this garbage?
Evolution never required that life be simple or complex. Supernatural creation also does not require it to be either.
And whether there is a 'must' in a supernaturally-created biology would depend on what supernatural creation you accept. The only one that meets your requirement for no 'must' is one that must consistenly operate through supernatural effects. That is your error.
This only reflects that methodlogical naturalism is the only thing that can generate "musts". When a supernatural creation contains parts that are entirely naturalistic then those parts, and only those parts, are testable. For example biblical creationists try to explain flood geology using naturalism and don't even entertain the idea of supernatural intervention. They don't say the water appeared from nowhere for example, or that Noahs boat and the animals on it were supernaturally protected. No, they try to explain where the water came from and went, and how all the animals survived on the boat using entirely natural explainations. Which is very odd seeing as under their construction of science there is absolutely no reason to do so. They could just say the water appeared supernaturally, or the animals on the Ark were temporarily made immortal and required no food.
Evidence is interpreted to be consistent w/ evolution. Geological formations are dated by the youngest fossils w/ older fossil inclusion being the assumed result of 'fossil reworking'.
I am not aware of even one mammal (or reptile or bird) fossil that was found in cambrian formation and had to be explained away by reworking. If there were even one I am sure a fuss would have been kicked up about it. Also there has to be evidence of reworking before that can be proposed. The cambrian appears void of these animals. That needn't have been the case.