I’m sorry, but we do not really have two competing theories here. We have, on the one hand, a thoroughly solid and dependable scientific theory. Every bit of evidence, testing and research which would be reasonably expected to confirm or falsify this theory has confirmed it 100% of the time.
This has been said before, but gravity is also a theory which is tested every day. Technically, we cannot actually “prove” that gravity exists, we can only say that the fact that anything with mass has been pulled back to the Earth 100% of the time that it has been observed leads us to a solid conclusion that something is causing that to happen. We call that something gravity, even though this is really only a term which describes the phenomenon of mass attracting mass. We still don’t really know the reason for this phenomenon, but we know, with as much certainty as can be humanly expected, that mass attracts mass in every instance which has ever been observed.
Now, it is also hypothetically possible that gravity does not exist at all, and that every seemingly observed instance of gravity has only been a coincidence. Perhaps all mass in the universe moves in a purely random manner, and for the past 12 billion years every observable part of the universe has simply been moving in such a way as to look exactly as though gravity exists.
“Disbelieving” evolution requires exactly the same kind of absurd leap in logic. It requires us to believe that all of the expected geology, paleontology, geneology, biology, archaeology, zoology, entemology and anthropology have merely been arranged, by some unbelievable coincidence, to look exactly like simpler species have changed over time into other species.
The evidence to support such a hypothesis is…
Nothing. Not one thing. There is no exhibit A. There is only religious tautology-- which is fine if you find that satisfying, but it is not a scientific theory. Creationism has no more relationship to any kind of biological science than astrology has to astronomy.
Actually, astrology has more going for it. At least astrologers base some of their discipline on the real, observable movements of the planets. They do not invent imaginary orbits to suit their whims.