True “Biology” confirms Life comes from Life.
There's no non-true biology, but there's pseudoscience, creationism, etc. The statement is correct in that extant life replicates with modification from existing life. But abiogenesis still had to occur for that to become possible, meaning that life appeared from chemistry that may not have been considered "alive" initially. When one dies, there's still much chemistry going on, but the complex organism itself ceases to function as a being. Before such complex life forms evolved, there were many simpler life forms after abiogenesis, even unicellular.
True “Biology” confirms Kinds produce the same kinds.
They are not called kinds, that would be a particular translation from a simple observation written by ancient humans, that creationists promote with pseudoscience including baraminology. But it is technically correct beyond what you would admit: humans are also great apes (great apes don't produce non-apes), who are also mammals (who don't produce non-mammals), etc. It doesn't mean that populations don't evolve via mutations and natural selection.
True “Biology” confirms designed DNA comes from a Designer.
Science is not in the business of affirming faith but must work with what it discovers for practical reasons. With an article of faith, one tries, with motivated justifications, to fit the world into it. With science, we study the world and see where that leads, evolution being a conclusion that was not a-priori the end goal, but another discovery that turned out to also be very insightful and successful to explain how life works, even further. There is much evidence for evolution in the genetic code and its discovery further confirmed it, helped to correct and improve phylogenic trees, etc. But there is no evidence that it was designed, or for the existence of a non-Earthly designer.
True “Biology” confirms adaptation to environments are pre-programmed in the genetic code.
Misrepresentation, but life evolves and adapts when it has the time to, when it survives in the face of environmental change, etc.
True “Biology” is kryptonite to every view that comes against God as Creator.
This is just meaningless.
“Bio” means Life
“Ology” means the study of.
So? Etymology doesn't dictate the hypotheses, determine which hypotheses get falsified or confirmed or the explanatory models, scientific theories, that result from observation.
The “study of life” leads you to the Creator of life!
Wishthinking, preaching. If there was a creator, one must assume that it must also have been living, but we have not found evidence of that. If there was, we may possibly also be able to determine the origin of said species... Also, for many Christians, there is no problem with treating the mythology of Genesis as symbolic and accepting knowledge of the natural world. They don't need to deny biology. Why do you?
The real issue is that many Churches have compromised the character of the Creator by incorporating the unconfirmed hypothesis of Evolution, (molecules to man / chemicals to consciousness / parameciums to people) into the narrative of the Bible. This distorts truth with a lie.
There you go. If they accept biology and evolution, it's because precisely, there is overwhelming evidence and rejecting it is acknowledged to be drifting into irrelevancy. It is also because the pseudoscientific arguments of creationists are untenable. That's also why you must constantly preach to deny it and fight untainted education. To outsiders including many other Christians, that is recognized as a form of radicalization against reality and the reenforcement of ignorance.