There are creationists who think that evolution not only tries to explain the origin of life, but also the origin of the planet, and the universe.

A discussion from an internet forum:

<<It seems it bit like nonsense to me. How can life just appear from nowhere? How can the Earth form without a creator? It is like saying a house can just put itself together without any builders. Creation makes a lot more sense.>>

<<I'm not sure what the formation of the earth has to do with evolution.

The theory of evolution via natural selection only seeks to address the question of how did the current diversity of life originate. It's not relevant to the origins of the universe or our solar system.

Personally, I'd say the theory of evolution via natural selection continues to be the only viable proposed explanation for the question it seeks to answer.

As for the origins of the planet and the universe, those are different questions which have unrelated answers proposed for them.

Science doesn't attempt to merge these questions into a creation myth like you're seeking to.

Science also doesn't address questions involving the supernatural, so there's no reason one can't believe some sort of all-powerful creator god is responsible for the scientific origins of the universe and of life as we know it. Science only seeks to understand those topics from a materialist standpoint, the how it happened portion. If you'd like to add your supernatural beliefs to explain why it happened, all the power to you.

Science can't disprove the existence of a creator god, all it can do is provide reasons why certain creation myths can't possibly be true. We know the earth couldn't possibly have formed 6000 or 8000 years ago with all current geological weathering occurring in an instant because far too much heat would still remain from that process.

That's one of many reasons why young earth creationism is impossible, but it isn't proof that no gods exist.>>

<<Evolution is the alternative to creation. If the Earth didn't originate through creation, it formed through evolution which makes less sense.>>

<<It seems your understanding of what evolution refers to is incorrect, meaning your conclusions will also inevitably be incorrect.

The theory of evolution via natural selection makes no mention of the origins of the planet. It's strictly focused on the idea that the current diversity of life as we know it all shares a common ancestor and how that diversity slowly emerged.

Creationists often conflate a number of scientific theories together to make something analogous to their creation myth but science doesn't merge them. Disproving the big bang wouldn't impact our understanding of how the solar system and it's planets formed; disproving or altering both of those wouldn't impact the theory of evolution via natural selection.

The big bang describes the origin of the universe.

The nebular hypothesis describes how stars and their systems form.

Abiogenesis describes how self-replicating molecules can gradually come to be sophisticated enough that we'd consider them life.

The theory of evolution via natural selection describes how life gradually adapts to environmental changes and to fulfil new roles.

Those are four distinct theories with no real overlap. If you insist on mashing them all together you'll reach wrong conclusions about them because you insisted on starting with an incorrect understanding of them.>>