Simply asserting this doesn't make it true. An assertion is not evidence.
Well, no, look. Ray's right about this. You gotta give it to him.
If there were only two pieces of evidence in the entire world - the Bible and the appearance of design in the natural world - creationism would be the most logical explanation. The appearance of design
does suggest design. I mean, that's how we know the difference between a river rock and a flint arrowhead.
In the context of this thread - the best evidence for creationism - it's true that the best evidence is the appearance of design in the natural world and the testimony of the Bible. Those are the two best things they have.
Outside of the context of this thread, the Bible's testimony is rendered unreliable by independent evidence; and the conjecture of a designer to explain the appearance of design is enormously contradicted by a
vast weight of evidence
on our side. So it's not to say that creationism is
true, because it's obviously not; neither of their two best pieces of evidence actually amounts to anything. The appearance of design in nature is better explained by a natural process that results in the appearance of design - a process we have abundant, independent evidence for.
But none of that is relevant to the question right now - the best evidence for creationism. It's the appearance of design in nature and what the Bible says. Their best evidence
isn't very good, it pretty much sucks compared to the mountain of evidence for evolution, but it
is the best that they have.