A lot of it is a misunderstanding of what "evolution" really is.
What evolution really is is applied genetics combined with sexual reproduction and environmental stimulus. It is a process, that is fundamentally not unlike any other biological process such as digesting food, breathing, or sexual reproduction itself which is a key element of the biological process of evolution. All evolution truly means is gradual change over generations, particularly hereditary changes.
What is called microevolution, which is hereditary changes within populations within the same species, is not even theory, it's fact, it's something that we humans have done in the past and continue to do. Think about how many breeds of dogs there are. God didn't individually create Golden Retrievers and Beagles and Alaskan Malamutes. Humans separated out traits they liked and bred them together, substituting for environmental stimulus to evolve a breed specialized in those traits they wanted, like a good nose for tracking, or a soft mouth for retrieving fowl without damaging it, a downy undercoat to keep a dog warm and powerful muscles to pull through the snow. But what God created, was the species that our domesticated dogs were bred from, Canis lupus. Similarly, you can grow bacteria in a petri dish, then introduce discs containing weak concentrations of antibiotics, and grow them, then if you take a sample of the colonies that grow closest to the disc, and put them on another dish with higher concentrations, and keep repeating, you'll find after a few generations, the bacteria can now fill the whole plate and pretty much ignore the antibiotics. Why? Because you provided the bacteria with an environmental pressure so that bacteria that could resist the antibiotic survived and reproduced, while those susceptible to the antibiotic died. All the future generations that were reproducing all had the genetics to resist the antibiotic.
Evolution, as a process, is not incompatible with creationism, or God, unless you have a very narrow view of what it means for God to create something (IE it has to be magically poofed into existence). Evolution being change over generations because of genetics, sexual reproduction, and environmental pressures (or outside manipulation, such as when humans selectively breed for something, genetically engineer something, or, think of this, if humans can manipulate DNA to create hybrids, just think of how God can use that knowledge? God created the genetic code.) is just a mechanism for expanding diversity within a species is what we know for fact, expanding diversity of the number of species itself is where it crosses into the theory realm because it is not something that we can duplicate ourselves (though we could certainly create hybrids that are sometimes different enough to be their own species, GMO's and the like). But I'd argue is not out of the realm of possibilities for God to do. Genesis uses the word kind a lot, and I think it is logical, that what God created were kinds rather than individual species, a kind might be the equivalent of a taxonomical family. Such as the Canidae family. Noah had to cram 2 of every kind of animal on the ark, not 2 of every species, of which there are millions of species, but a lot fewer families. From those representative species, diversity could have evolved out of those, especially if God had wanted to speed up the process Himself.
Ultimately they are all still God's creations, even if a biological process was involved as the mechanism that God used to create, because God created that mechanism itself. Think about this, does it make you any less God's creation that you were born from a biological process of your parents having sex, father's sperm fusing with mother's egg, combining from 2 haploid (1 half of a set of normal human chromosomes) sets of chromosomes into a full diploid set, and the cell undergoing mitosis, expressing different genes to specialize stem cells into different types of cells to form all your organs and tissues, given nourishment and oxygen from your mother's blood, and being born? God didn't sculpt you with His own hands and breathe life into you, but to me you are no less a creature of God. Even if "evolution" was a part of the process. It is still creation by God.
Still stuck on magic because in Genesis 1 God spoke things into being? He did some but I'd like to point out that in Genesis 1, there are several times that the act of speaking, and the act of creating, are in separate verses, which to me indicates that God didn't necessarily speak it out of nothing, but He created it with an unspecified mechanism, sometimes we might find evidence of that mechanism in nature.
Genesis 1:3
This is speaking something into existence directly. There is no followup verse where God actively does anything other than speak, aside from God dividing light from darkness, but the light itself was just "there" right after God spoke.
This on the other hand Genesis 1:6-7
Separation between speaking and God actively doing something to create, with no explanation how God did it. This happens again in Genesis 1:20-21 and Genesis 1:24-25 That's the creation of animals. He separated the act of speaking from the act of creating. This has always been an "Aha!" moment for me, where scripture and science are not necessarily in conflict, but rather man's interpretation of scripture has been in conflict with science.
My absolute favorite verse is Proverbs 25:2 it is my "scientist" verse
and I find that scripture can conceal things that God maybe felt was better for us to "search out" these matters for ourselves. Study of nature itself should always reveal God, not conflict with Him. Scripture does not lie, but scripture conceals, and our interpretations of it can be flawed. Nature does not lie either, and nature definitely conceals, it has to be "searched out", but our understanding of it can be flawed.
So is science wrong? No.
Is scripture wrong? No.
Can our interpretations of scripture, with a prejudice towards a certain narrative mislead us? Yes.
Can our interpretations of data taken from observations of data, with a prejudice towards a certain narrative mislead us? Yes.
If we read the bible with a preconception that God does things entirely through magic, then we'll interpret scripture to back up that preconception, and assume any time science disagrees with that preconception, than the science is wrong.
If we observe nature with a preconception that there is no God, that things had to have happened naturally on their own, then you'll interpret findings that lead you to hypothesis supporting that preconception.
What needs to be done is observations of nature and scripture, need to be compared as if both the raw data from the observations, and the raw scripture, are both true, then the interpretation of both where they agree with each other, is more likely to be closer to the truth. We won't know the absolute truth of it until we can ask God face to face. But it can be a guess that we have.
For example, the "Big Bang". Both science, and the bible, agree that at a point in time, matter and energy sprang into existence very suddenly. The difference is, the naturalist world view holds that the big bang had no cause, the bible tells us the cause. Was there a big bang? Yes, absolutely there was, the cosmic microwave background radiation is "the echo of the big bang", the universe is expanding, expanding from what? Its point of origin where a big bang occurred. When God created the universe at the beginning, it manifested as a giant explosion of matter and energy that didn't previously exist, but now it suddenly came into being. Scripture and science agree on the raw data.
So to conclude, is Evolution "the enemy" and Godless and abiblical? Not necessarily. What is the opposing view is not evolution, a process, itself, but rather the NATURALIST world view, that it happened completely on its own, without God.
