The Theory of Evolution is more logical than The Argument for Creationism.

I will make out a case for the opposition. As the proposed motion is supposed to suggest that evolution is 'more logical' than the creationist theory, I will not so much focus on the science of creationism vs evolution, but rather, the epistemological value of justification used to propose the motion that evolution is 'more logical', as opposed to 'less logical'. By logic, I mean the justification used to support a belief; something logical justifies a belief, whilst something illogical does not justify a belief. Without going into too much details of what branches of creationism there are, I will simply be using the notion that 'God created the Universe and all organisms in their present form' when referring to creationism. In actuality, whichever stance I take is not important, because I will be tackling the more underlying theme at stake here, which is whether we can trust scientific evidence at all. Hence, by proving that we cannot rely on science to give us a definitive answer, I will prove that both creationism and evolution are equally 'logical'. One of the first reasons we cannot trust science to provide us with a logical establishment is because it is empirical evidence. There is a strong case to be made that no empirical evidence can 'logically' support any argument whatsoever, because there is no empirical evidence that can prove any theory with any certainty. The only claims that can be justified for certain are a priori analytic claims such as 'a ball is round' since by definition, all balls are necessarily round. Empirical evidence on the other hand, cannot provide any logical, certain claims. Yes it could be true that there are fossils showing different organisms, which appear to evolve into one another, but can you rule out that they weren't just very similar creatures living a different times? or that they weren't planted there by an evil alien to trick us into believing that evolution is true? In fact, we can't even 'logically' claim that the rocks in which the fossils are contained are millions of years old, because the fact that time is constant now provides no 'logical' reason that rock formation was constant in the past, because this is a generalisation from a particular to the general (it's true now that rocks take millions of years to form, so it must always have been true). In fact, what we see is that the entire field of science is unreliable, because no amount of empirical evidence can 'logically' support any belief. Taking it to the extreme, we don't even know that the world we see is a real world. We cannot distinguish between what we think is the real world, and a world created by scientists, just poking our brain in a vat. Maybe there are no other organisms in this world, and maybe nothing else except you exist (because you are thinking, you must exist), so evolution never even occurred. So, as we cannot be 'logically' certain of anything based on scientific evidence, we cannot say that we 'know' that evolution is right, because 'knowing' something implies that it is impossible for one to be wrong about it. As I can't prove I'm just a brain in a vat, being stimulated by scientists (or God), or that anything in the present is the same as it was in the past, I cannot be certain about evolution,and therefore, I cannot claim to 'know' that evolution is true. Likewise, I cannot 'know' for certain that creationism is true, but both theories are equally unjustifiable and therefore unknowable. As both evolution and creationism are unknowable, we therefore cannot say that one is more 'logical' than the other. To surmise: I will be taking the line of argument that science cannot 'logically' justify either creationism nor evolution, and therefore, both of the are equally (il)logical. This is as I believe that the only 'logically true' statements are analytic statements; ones that contain a predicate concept within the subject itself (e.g. roundness is a concept contained within the subject of a ball, so a ball is logically and necessarily round).