Rationality vs rationalization on evolution

What constitutes a good logical argument on the subject of origins? One highly flawed argument is the process of elimination.

The short form of the argument is:

• The candidates are creation or evolution.
• Evolution is not a viable candidate.
• Therefore creation is true.

The main reason why this is flawed is that real science always allows space in its list of answers at least a small chance of "none of the above". In other words, no list of possible answers is considered exhaustive. As a result, no matter how diligently you work to rule out all but one of the items on any list, you always have at least two choices left – the remaining item, and "something else."

In particular, any argument based on eliminating evolution from the list of possible answers, even if we stipulate that creation is the only viable alternative, fails because it's impossible to eliminate "something else", especially since, by definition, it's a "something else" we don't know about yet.

The other major problem with the arguments against evolution is that the alternative is not something that's been arrived at to explain an observed fact. Instead, it's assumed from the start, and observations are sifted and sorted to fit the explanation.

I should think it would be pretty obvious that creation is not deduced in any way, as a proposed answer to "What's going on here, anyway?" The creationist answer is hardly a logical conclusion, but is rather already known, it is axiomatic, a priori, not subject to doubt or question. All of these superficially eliminative arguments are attempts to rationalize a foregone conclusion. It's apparently not considered persuasive to say "I believe this because its true" except to someone who already shares the same belief. Others are too likely to accept different truths.