I have written before how some evolutionists lie and say that there is no evidence for creation. Perhaps I should be a little nicer and give some people the benefit of the doubt. Instead of saying they lie, some people may not understand the concept of a scientific theory. Usually, evolutionists accuse creationists of not understanding the definition of a scientific theory and in some cases, they may have a point. But when evolutionists say there is no evidence for creation, I suspect it's they who don't understand what a theory is. On the other hand, maybe these people are intentionally conflating their theory with the evidence.
According to Wikipedia, “A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.” In other words, a theory is a scientific model constructed to explain the evidence. The theory isn't the evidence and the evidence isn't the theory. Theories are invented to make sense of the evidence but the evidence itself is neutral.
Suppose you found a fossil. The rock doesn't tell you anything about itself. It's a dumb rock (dumb as in not speaking). It doesn't tell you how old it is. It doesn't tell you how it was made. It doesn't tell you what it is a fossil of. It really doesn't even tell you it's a fossil. It simply exists and we have different ideas on how it came to be. Evolutionists believe fossils were laid down by successive, local floods over billions of years. Creationists believe many or most fossils were created simultaneously only a few thousand years ago during the global flood described in the Bible. We have different theories, but it's the same fossil.
When you ask someone who believes in evolution what evidence is there for his theory, he might say things like the fossils, the rock layers, and even dinosaurs. And what is the evidence for creation? It's things like the fossils, the rock layers, and even dinosaurs. It's the same evidence; we merely have different theories to explain it. We live in the same world, don't we? How can there be different evidence?
Sometimes I'm not sure what evolutionists are thinking. I know they're convinced of their theory. Perhaps they believe their theory explains the evidence so well that they believe the truth of evolution is obvious. In that sense, when they say there is no evidence for creation, they are using a type of hyperbole. It would be like me believing Michael Jordan is so great a basketball player that I might say, “there are no other basketball players.” But I suspect that's not what they mean. I think they intend to be literal. If so, to say there isn't evidence for creation is to demonstrate a gross ignorance of either what evidence is or what a theory it is.