Q: Is Romans 1:20 a challenge to the Theory of Evolution?
First off, what is meant by "evolution"? Organisms change over time; the evidence for this is, by any sane and rational definition, undeniable. One needs only look at modern dog breeds¹ to see this. No one to my knowledge denies Natural Selection, including those that believe God Created all things — Heavens, Earth, all plants and animals according to their kinds, and humans — circa 4,000 BC.
On the other hand, dogs are still dogs; they reproduce "after their kind" (Genesis 1). When lay people speak of "evolution", they often mean the supposition that all life originated from non-life and diversified through common ancestors, i.e. "Common Descent".
(¹ Many specific breeds of dogs show remarkable changes just in the last hundred years. There are many other example of rapid adaptation and diversification, and the variety seen among all animal kinds, including among humans, is a testament to how much change has occurred since Creation. Dogs just happen to be one of the most easily recognized examples.)
Let's try again:
Q: Is Romans 1:20 a challenge to the Theory of Common Descent?
One of the groups that Paul likely encountered in his travels to Greece were the Epicureans, who believed that all worlds, and all life, "was the result of a fortuitous concourse of appropriate atoms" (Lucretius). Like modern believers in Common Descent, Epicurean theory requires belief in a remarkable series of coincidences. Paul's argument in Romans is, simply, that such beliefs are simply not credible, and that, moreover, this lack of credibility is self-evident.
Strictly speaking, Paul is not attacking the Epicurean (or Darwinian) belief directly, but is rather is pointing out that those who accept such arguments are "without excuse".
Many atheists claim that there is "no evidence" of a Creator. Paul, in Romans 1:20, tells us in no uncertain terms that such people are willfully blind; they "suppress the truth" that "is plain to them" and "clearly perceived"; they are "futile in their thinking" and "fools" who have "exchanged the truth about God for a lie".
2 Peter 3 also warns against such "scoffers" who believe that "all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation" and who "deliberately overlook [the] fact that [...] the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished" (i.e. Noah's Flood). Elsewhere we learn that "God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false" (2 Thessalonians 2:11).
What, then, of Christians that believe in Common Descent? If God directed "evolution", then Romans 1 might not be an argument directly against Common Descent... although 2 Peter poses a serious objection, along with every other place where Genesis 1-11 is taken to be historical, including by Jesus Himself.
It needs to be noted that most Christians believe that only belief in Christ is absolutely necessary for salvation. Nevertheless, Paul challenges us to not disregard the evidence that is all around us... and that evidence says not only that life is designed, but that "the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished".
On the one hand, we have claims that are ultimately rooted in God-denial, and are full of scientific contradictions. On the other, we have the plain reading of Scripture and mountains of evidence that support such a reading. Paul challenges us all, atheist and Christian alike, to open our eyes to that which is "clearly perceived", and to be skeptical of the foolishness and futile thinking of those who "exchanged the truth about God for a lie".