One of the biggest problems in discussing Evolution is that Evolutionists don't often understand the difference between a scientific claim and a historical one. Scientific claims are claims about the present. We use words in the present tense. For example, we could say that "friction produces heat". This is a present day fact. Anyone can observe this regardless of their pre-existing beliefs. If you want to prove to someone that friction produces heat, there are a number of experiments you can perform to prove it right in front of their eyes.
By contrast, "friction produced heat" is a claim about the past. Of course, it is entirely reasonable to make this claim. Friction produces heat today, and so we can logically say friction has always produced heat. And when you add the fact that God upholds the universe by a certain set of laws, with which He almost never interferes (the very premise upon which science was founded), you have extremely solid reasons to claim that friction has always produced heat. We could also add the future tense "friction will produce heat".
What happens when we apply this to Evolution? Well, just as we have "friction produces heat" and "friction produced heat", we have "humans evolve from ape like creatures" and "humans evolved from ape like creatures". The former would be a claim about the present, the latter about the past. We could also add "humans will evolve from ape like creatures".
But we have a major problem here. Unlike heat production from friction, none of those statements hold up. Evolutionists cannot say "humans evolve from ape like creatures", because humans do not evolve from ape like creatures. Humans are already here, and the only known source of new human beings is the sexual union of two already existing human beings. By contrast, the only ape like creatures we have today are not evolving into humans. They are, of course, producing their own kind, just as scripture tells us. So Evolutionists cannot make the present claim about Evolution, which would be the only aspect of Evolution that could ever be scientific.
What about "humans evolved from ape like creatures"? This is a claim about the past. It is, thus, not a scientific claim. And in fact, it is an anti-scientific claim. When using the present to judge the past, it helps if the present we observe matches the past we speculate about. Again, I can say "friction produced heat" because I can just as easily say "friction produces heat". But I cannot say "humans evolve from ape like creatures", and therefore I cannot use the present to say humans evolved from ape like creatures.
In fact, present observations militate against this idea. Again, humans come from humans, ape like creatures do not produce humans. All throughout history, only three human beings have ever been recorded to have come from anything other than the sexual union of two human beings: The first two humans (Adam and Eve), and Jesus, who at least has the advantage of having had a human mother. But for these three exceptions, all of human history records human beings coming exclusively from pre-existing human beings.
Furthermore, these "ape like" ancestors of human beings do not even exist in fossil form. Evolutionists are so desperate to find their missing links that when they're not faking them (e.g. Piltdown man, a forgery made by adding an orangutan jaw to a human skull), they're imagining them based on incomplete fossils (e.g. Nebraska man, which was based on a single tooth that eventually turned out to be from a pig), anthropomorphising extinct ape species (e.g. australopithecus, an extinct ape, but an ape none the less), or dehumanising humans (e.g. Neanderthal man, which is so human that if you put a suit on one, he wouldn't look out of place in an executive board room). The missing links are still missing. The human Evolution story is based on wishful thinking, imagination, and outright fraud.
So we see that Evolution is not a fact about science, but a myth about history. It is not a claim about science because it is not a claim about the present. In fact, observations about the present do not even allow us to conclude that Evolution could ever have happened.
But what about Christianity? Well, just like Evolution, Christianity is not science. Creationism is a claim about history, as is most of the rest of the Bible. It does make some claims about science, of course, and there is plenty to say about the future. But the Bible mostly makes claims about history and the supernatural.
Just like Evolution, Creationism is about the past. We don't say "in the present, God is creating the heavens and the earth". We say "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". It's not a scientific claim, it's a historical one. So, what's the difference?
Let's first talk about the science. Creationism is not happening in the present, but there are present observations that are consistent with it. For example, we know that language is always the product of a mind. The spoken word, the written word, the code of a computer, these were all intelligently designed. You can't just drop ink on a page and hope it forms the alphabet. So, if you find a book, you know it was written by someone. Even if it's in a language you've never seen before, you can recognise that the specific arrangement of the ink was intelligently designed as opposed to created randomly.
For all intents and purposes, DNA is a language. Your genetic CODE is the instructions for making you. So, we can construct the following syllogism:
Premise 1: Language is always intelligently designed. Premise 2: DNA is a language. Conclusion: DNA is intelligently designed.
We can go further and say that the law of biogenesis has been proven both for animals (Francesco Redi, 1650) and for microscopic organisms (Louis Pasteur, 1864). It is scientifically impossible for any living organism to come about except from parents similar to itself. There are actually organisations on both sides of the debate that are offering large cash rewards for any evidence that this law is wrong.
So, the scientific evidence would indicate that Creationism is, at the very least, viable. But of course, the Bible isn't based on scientific evidence. Rather, it is a first hand testimony of the Creator Himself. But slow down! Now we're getting into the realms of circular reasoning, so let's focus on the human element for a moment.
Once we set aside the divine origins of the Bible, we still have a solid case. Why? Because the Bible is still either first hand testimony, or second hand testimony. Luke, for example, was a historian. He didn't just find a bloody cross and an empty tomb and conclude "hey, a guy must have risen from the dead". No, Luke spoke to people who knew Jesus. John was the same. Science didn't convince him that Jesus was crucified and that He rose again. He walked with Jesus during His ministry, stood at the foot of the cross while He died, and spoke with Him after His resurrection.
The Old Testament is no different. Sure, some elements are not witness testimony. Moses, for example, never met Joseph, or Jacob, or Isaac, or Abraham. But Moses certainly knew himself. No one found a partially eroded desert rock and concluded "hmm, some dude named Moses must have struck this rock to make water flow from it". No, the same Moses spoken about in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy wrote Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.
And the bit where Moses dies at the end of Deuteronomy? Obviously not Moses. But Joshua, Moses' successor, was also a witness. So, he concluded Deuteronomy, and wrote Joshua. He actually wrote Joshua to his own generation. Rahab the prostitute was still alive when Joshua was written (Joshua 6:25).
This makes the Bible a powerful witness to itself. The Gospels alone are 4 independent sources which consistently testify to each other's historicity. The case for Christ is so powerful that many atheists, such as Frank Morrison and Lee Strobel, often set out to disprove it and come back believing, some of them even writing books filled with the evidence they discovered. The Bible is actually such a strong historical document that in order to discount a lot of it, you would also have to discount most of human history prior to the invention of the printing press.
Scientifically and historically, the Bible comes out on top. That God created the heavens and the earth seems to be the most obvious and least ridiculous conclusion a man can draw. Even more astonishing is the fact that the same God who created the world actually humbled Himself enough to enter it through the blessed virgin, Mary. Jesus lived a human life, never sinned, and died on a cross, after which time He rose again. This was no more accidental than the creation itself. It was planned in advance.
See, humans were made in the image of God, but we also rebelled against Him. For this, we deserve His wrath. But because Jesus never sinned, He was qualified to receive that wrath on our behalf. And He did! Because God punished Jesus, He no longer has to punish us.
But there is a caveat: Faith. Salvation is freely offered, but it must also be received. Those wishing to benefit from Jesus' death are required to confess Him as Lord and believe that He rose. But as I've shown, this conclusion is an easy one to draw. Evolution doesn't have a leg to stand on. Jesus had two.