Not to Creation, because Darwin did not explain how life began (he did speculate). Darwin was not the first to propose evolution, or that selection happens; Darwin’s key idea is that selection happens naturally, and this has been found to be better than all the existing theories of evolution that existed at the time.
I agree that statistics are not always necessary for inference, but the formalized method is correct. Statistics allow us to make inference in the presence of uncertainty.
With respect to the question of this topic, where arguments are based on probability, we can make statements objective statements about right/wrong ways of doing things based on mathematics.
Unrelated, but REALLY cool. A word game based on “evolving words”.
http://www.ersimages.com/weasel/index.htm
I previous mentioned that your sentence IS testable in a formal way (but it would be a lot of work, so let’s not go there). But the inference here is that you type the sentence - we do not infer that some previously unknown colewd exist because we have prior knowledge of your existence.
It is incorrect to leap to conclusions about things that may not exist. It’s OK to look for evidence of something you think might exist.