These are notoriously ill-defined.
As for your nebulous idea of “creative evolution”, if this is supposed to mean merely large-scale morphological transitions (or the degree of change that separate more distantly related organisms), there is evidence it is caused by the same mechanisms (here meaning the accumulation of genetic changes such as mutations, under drift and selection) as those you presumably think about with microevolution.
We can show it by comparative genetics. One of the ways is simply looking for the hallmarks of particular types of mutations, such as transposons, whole genome duplications, and so on. Another is looking for evidence of positive and purifying selection (dn/ds ratios for example), and substitution biases. Yet another is sequence conservation (again as evidence for the operation of selection on different parts of the genome). These are all different lines of evidence that the genetic differences between species have been caused by the molecular mechanisms of transgenerational evolutionary change in a population: mutations and genetic recombination subject to drift and selection, which are the same mechanisms operating during microevolution.
Some of the inferences are just simple and obvious. Repetitive regions for example, known from direct empirical observation to be highly prone to mutations, are usually also more highly variable between species.
According to you it’s just an assumption, this inference. With no evidence for it. Someone just dreamt it up and nothing reasonable links the experiments to the inference that genetic differences between species owes to a similar mechanism.
What a fatuous suggestion.
I thought about responding by just calling this an appeal to your incredulity, but to really bring out how absurd your position is we could make an exact mirror of the argument for ancient craters. What caused them? Are they craters? Well it’s just an assumption, there’s “no evidence” they were caused by bolide impacts.
This idea that the continued accumulation of the same genetic changes we see over short timescales produce small-scale changes, should somehow fail to produce larger-scale changes over greater timescales when more changes accumulate, is “just an assumption” with “no evidence for it” is that stupid. It’s Ken Ham-level “were you there?” stuff.