1. an assumption of impossibility is made 2. What is left *must* be the truth, however impossible.
Neither Creationism nor Evolutionism is less probable or more provable. Both are matters of faith, in the end. Because evolutionists also come down to the point where they cannot explain something crucial to the argument, just as Creationists do.
The question then becomes, why does one person make the assumption that there *is* a personal creator, and the other person does not? What is the motivation behind the decision?