Evolutionist still on board, right? So is it that from Millers experiments we draw conclusions that it is plausible to believe that rest of the theory is right?
The Millers experiments are not evidence for evolution. Some people argue that the results support a hypothesis known as ABIOGENESIS, which basically says that the first chemical replicators were formed by natural processes. The idea assumes that the very first steps in the formation of primitive life forms did not involve any magic tricks by some unknown super-being.
Scientists like to find the simplest natural explanation for phenomena, not some crazy complicated, off-the-wall, outlandish, fantastic, unlikely explanation for which there is no evidence.
After the first replicators formed, then evolution was possible. The theory of evolution requires that characteristics are reproduced in offspring.
The distribution of characteristics, height, strength, speed etc. varies over time giving rise to different life forms in different environments.
If you throw a million dice on the floor, then remove all the ones that didn't show a six, then throw those, repeatedly, eventually you'll get a million sixes.
That is a rough analogy for the theory of evolution, a theory that has been accepted by most scientists since about 1870.
A scientific theory is not some random idea and it never contains miracles. Scientists are pretty strict about that.
There is still a Flat Earth Society and the members meet regularly, presumably to discuss new evidence that the earth is flat.
Creationists also have meetings.