Hey, look, I have access to Wikipedia!
The idea of an Ice Age existed before Darwin published On the Origin of Species, so the idea that the theory of evolution (at least the theory of evolution that is accepted by modern scientists today). So, unless you mean nonDarwinian evolution, you are, as Rubber Chicken pointed out, wrong on even that point.
And. look, although others had similar ideas, Louis Agassiz was one of those to propose the idea of an Ice Age (in 1837 -- Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859). Agassiz was hardly a proponent of evolution. He held out against the idea even as most of his fellow scientists were starting to accept it.
So the idea that paleontologists and geologists came to the idea of an Ice Age only because they had the Theory of Evolution in mind is completely and utterly wrong. Furthermore, how does the idea of evolution lead to the idea of an Ice Age. I'm sorry, i don't see the connection. The distribution of fossils are part of the evidence for Ice Ages, but they are hardly the only evidence (especially because fossils are so rare in the first place). I'd argue that these "rock formations" (by which I assume you mean valleys carved by glaciers and the like) are more important evidence. Also, the chemical composition of ice cores also provide evidence of Ice Ages. Evidence for Ice Ages comes from different fields of science and they happen to agree with each other.
Kind of like the evidence for the theory of evolution . . . which you don't accept either . . .
Is two minutes of Google research really that hard?