Question in the book God plays dice

Hello,         
I read your book God Plays Dice and I have a question that has accompanied me throughout the book:
In his book, the Rabbi presents two ways in the creationist method, which I will present here briefly only for the sake of discussion:
1. This is the fundamentalist who claims that the world was created in six days and denies the theory of evolution in all its parts without any distinction (including natural selection).
2. A sober approach that, on the one hand, accepts the theory of evolution because it is scientific, teleological. And if this is the case, the belief in an intelligent designer is only strengthened because the process is so improbable, it is unlikely to occur without an intelligent designer.
Throughout the book, which deals with the process of creating the world, there is no mention of another way of thinking that exists in creationist thinking (which, by the way, became more clear to me after reading the book). I don't even know what your method is regarding it, because you didn't mention it. 
Now I will propose the method: 1. There is no point in denying the current evolutionary process happening in the world. Survival of the fittest (natural selection) is teleology and heredity is a scientific fact. 2. The discussion is about the past, that is, the question of how the different species of plants and animals were created? How was man created?
And to this question I will argue that: A. There is no good scientific answer and B. There is an answer in the Torah that is worthy of acceptance as follows:
(Regarding the scientific answer to most of the problems, they are already written in the book, but for some reason it leads us to manage the process by an intelligent planner instead of throwing in the theory)
 
The starting point of the discussion is that there is an intelligent designer God (as you have proven in your book that the evidence for His existence is overwhelming). Now the question is how did the Creator create His world?
Here we have a scientific possibility - the evolutionary theory, which assumes 1. The leap from inanimate to living - which is unlikely, 2. Mutations always survive in the end and evolve - unlikely, 3. The creation of man (the soul) - there is no answer, and a few more.
Faced with a one-time creation of all creatures as they are, this is also unlikely, but only before the assumption that there is an intelligent cause for the universe. 
Here we enter a theological question whose answer seems simple: Can God only create natural laws that will produce all of creation, or can He also create it all directly? There is simply no reason for such a difference.
And after the theological layer, will this method still be hampered by fossil findings? And the dating of the age of the world by experts?
But to me, these are not problems at all because: A. There is no agreement among experts on the dating of the world. Each expert, according to his field, proposes a different age, which means that the tests (or at least all of them except one) are false. The reason for this is simply because the world has changed a lot in the last thousands of years (the flood, for example).
It is impossible to know from today's data about thousands of years ago.
I will present the second explanation later. So about creation in an evolutionary way.
Against this stands the testimony of the Creator of the universe in his Torah, which, from the simplicity of the verses, shows that each species was created on its own. 
But you claimed in the book that it is possible to take the verses out of context, but you will also agree that I would not do so without great necessity.
Here is another question that you presented in the book (a theological question), which is: Why would God create fossils and a universe that appears to us to have been created millions of years ago?
And in response to this, I will present to you the question that you also brought up in the book: Why did God create chains of death in the evolutionary process?
This is also a theological question. Therefore, this question is not worthy of consideration because it exists for both sides.
I am writing these things briefly so that you can relate to them, and therefore I have made some assumptions without detailing them, so please relate to them anyway and tell me what you think about them.