Regarding the evidence for biological evolution there is a useful article by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) at https://ncse.ngo/review-evolution-what-fossils-say-and-why-it-matters .
At https://ncse.ngo/genesis-knows-nothing-scientific-creationism the NCSE in an online issue of their "Creation/Evolution Journal" (Issue 12) makes an argument based upon the Bible and the archaeological discoveries of ancient writings that claims young earth creationism is incompatible with the Bible's account of creation. It makes the argument that Genesis 1:1 - 2:4 was not meant to be interpreted literally. The article is very interesting and it makes me now seriously question the idea of interpreting Genesis chapter one from a literal (fundamentalist style) point of view.
This article is by far the best presentation I have read that represents something similar to the theological liberal interpretation of theologians and biblical scholars, but in a way which also integrates a lot of scientific facts. I am surprised to learn that it is written by a science education organization - one which I highly respect. If its views are correct then I need to abandon most (maybe all) of my specific criticisms of the creation account of Genesis 1:1 - 2:4.
https://ncse.ngo/about-issue-0 says in part the following.
'Issue XI was devoted entirely to exposing the difficulties in creationist attempts to render scientifically plausible the story of Noah's Ark. ... But debunking the efforts of pseudoscientific biblical literalists by pitting their claims against the facts of nature is only one way to reveal the bankruptcy of their case. Another, and perhaps more basic, approach is to challenge their biblical literalism itself. Do "scientific creationists" read the Bible correctly? Is their biblical scholarship credible, or is it as outdated and superficial as their science?
In this issue, Conrad Hyers demonstrates how the matters dealt with in Genesis have nothing to do with the current creation-evolution controversy. The great religious issue that the biblical writers sought to resolve was one of a very different sort-one that proved to be more basic to modem Western religious belief than creationists suspect.
In future issues of Creation/Evolution, we will feature articles discussing Genesis from further angles. Although we remain a journal that focuses upon the scientific errors creationists make, it is important that we not miss the fact that they make errors in biblical scholarship as well-lest some accept the creationist claim that one must choose between evolution and the Bible.'