I'm willing to admit my presuppositions and biases and defend them, are you?

However, the difference between evolution and actual dogma is that evolution has evidence to back up its claims.

[image deleted]When creationists who believe in the biblical account of creation look at that same evidence we something that points to the Creator. When evolutionists look at that same evidence they presume to see part of the process of evolution.

Both have confirmation bias due to our faith.

What evidence do we have apart from faith, however, that a God or any creation exists?

I don't particularly look for "evidences" anymore. I am familiar with the arguments:
Cosmological Argument- every effect needs a sufficient cause.
Teleological Argument- order and complexity point to intelligence and purpose.
Anthropological Argument- man's universal belief in something greater than himself points to a higher order of being than man.
Moral Argument- man's belief in right and wrong point to a universal moral law.
Ontological Argument- man's concept of a greatest being is proof that such a being exist.
The list goes on. I am "presuppositional" in my defense of the faith. I presuppose that their is first uncaused Cause that is know as God and he has made himself known to us by revealing himself to us in our consciences, through creation, in his revealed revelation (we call it the Scriptures/bible), and through his Son.
I presuppose that without a universal transcendent mind, universal transcendent abstractions like logic could not be real.
If you want to look at more how a creationist could look at the same evidence in biology (especially human anatomy) look into the myriad of irreducible complexities in biological life.