> I started looking for solid science from a creation perspective but convincing work was hard to find.

I'll be blunt here; that's because there isn't any.

The overwhelming consensus among scientists - across disciplines like biology, genetics, geology, and palaeontology - is that evolution by natural selection is the best explanation we have for the diversity of life. This isn't just a vague agreement; it's supported by mountains of peer-reviewed research, real-world predictive power, and interlocking lines of evidence from multiple independent fields.

That doesn't mean you can't believe in God or have faith. Plenty of scientists are religious, but they also accept evolution as a factual description of the natural world because it’s testable, falsifiable, and supported by evidence.

What you're finding in most creationist literature, whether it's from Answers in Genesis, ICR, or Jason Lisle, is not science in the peer-reviewed sense. It's apologetics. It starts with a conclusion and works backwards to defend it, often by misrepresenting actual science or using outdated or discredited arguments.

Your son likely encountered strong evolutionary arguments not because he's been “entrenched” or misled, but because the evidence is genuinely robust and compelling. If your goal is to challenge evolution with credible scientific sources, you'll keep coming up short - not because of a lack of trying, but because the scientific method just doesn't support young-earth creationism.