Wouldn't such a person be forced to accept the argument from design, based on the empirical fact (from the 18th century perspective) that complex objects require an intelligent/intentional designer to acquire their complex structure?
Would the intricate complexity of the biosphere be a legitimate reason to believe in a first cause or creator?
How would someone argue against the argument from design without the theory of evolution?
In my opinion, there is one contentious point with the idea that life had to have an intelligent creator in the pre-Evolution world, and that is the acknowledgement that minds are themselves complex, much more complex than the meat in our muscles.
How did the complexity of our bodies arise!?! Surely it's too complex to come about naturally, via random chance, so an intelligent creator must have done it! But, then what of the complexity of the intelligent creator? If thought and mind and intelligence itself is complex, then the question is only moved back, not answered - now the question is "How did the complexity of the intelligent creator arise!?! Surely it's too complex to come about naturally."
So the problem with assuming an intelligent creator in this pre-evolution world is that it doesn't answer the question, it just creates a brand new equivalent question.