(Red balls only in a bag theory) -- pick one ball out, if it's red, that is evidence of red-ball theory. A weak consequent. Weak, because of the fallacy of affirmation, whereas a strong falsification is only one green ball). -- Intellectually, you have no option but to agree that if creation was true, such "evidence" would follow, and this particular evidence IS POWERFUL!
While I like your (red balls only in a bag theory), because this really is often how science operates, I don't see how this could be even remotely construed as "evidence for creation." What does that even mean when you say "creation?" That God made the first bacteria? If so, where is the proof "God" was ever involved? Explain how this is evidence that God, whatever that is, was involved.
I just don't see how this is powerful evidence for creation, when it has the explanatory power of aardvarks are evidence of God's thoughts.
Help me see this amazing connection, because from where I'm sitting it seems to be you pulling the red balls only in a bag right about now.
"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson