Since neither creation nor evolution can be duplicated, and given that there is no other scientific model (they are not theories because they cannot be actually tested), disproving the opposing postition is really the only option for conclusively establishing your own view. Based on the evidence, the creation/intelligent design side has done a much better job than the evolution side. There is no evidence which disproves creation, but there are plenty of questions about evolution for which there are no good answers. Behe's Darwin's Black Box is just example, and Behe has not claimed to be a creationist. He simply points out scientific evidence which would preclude macro-evolution. If macro-evolution is not possible, that leaves creation as the only current reasonable explanation.
Opinion stated as fact.
There is no evidence which disproves creation, but there are plenty of questions about evolution for which there are no good answers.
One is not required to 'disprove creation' since one cannot prove a negative. The Burden of Proof is upon those who support it to prove ANY EVIDENCE that creation is anything other than conjecture, which they cannot.
If you wish to ignore the fossil records that record the evolution of the horse, or pigs, or whatever, fine. But don't claim there is no 'evidence.' The fact that there are 'questions' means that the mechanism is clear enough to be argued. It doesn't disprove anything.
The real issue is the thought process. Creationism is dependent upon an abandonment of logic and reason in favor of an ideology, and evolution seeks to build a theory based upon available evidence. The dispute is, Do you think or Do you believe? That is all.