Personally, I think it's irrelevant to put stock in one particular theory over another. Whether it's evolution, or anticipation or whatever - the fact is that nobody has actually logically proven that any one theory is certainly true.
1) Theories can't be proved! That theories are ideas waiting to be proved is a common misunderstanding among non-scientists. In science, a theory is the highest form of explanation. Theories explain facts, and give them meaning. A powerful theory also allows successful predictions to be made, and new facts to be found.
2) There is generally only one theory in each given field, and it constitutes the current best explanation for the facts it covers. The theory of evolution does not appear to be in conflict with this "anticipation" hypothesis.
Personally I think the whole thing is about beliefs, as neutrally there is no reason to favour one theory over another. I apreciate that the evidence is apparently there for evolution,(i.e. I don't say scientists are dishonest) but epistemologically, evidence itself is not a powerful inference, and evolution is largely hypothetics. There is a large amount of evidence for creation, technically speaking, because certain facts are in place which would certainly follow if creation was true.
There is a huge amount of scientific evidence for the theory of evolution, and no scientific evidence for creation. Belief in creationism is a
belief.
I can't question matter, nor any other facts. Atleast not in this manner, if we define knowledge as "justified true belief". Thuse we have this debate which goes on forever. This is why it's better to trust in the unchanging Word rather than changeable limited man theories.
The unchanging Word would not lead to computers and all of the other things science has produced. It would have us believing in a global flood about 4,350 years ago and accepting slavery.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.