Hmmm...
Evolution: lightning struck a pond, or some such, and eventually things started walking about
Creation: some entity (we call Him God) applied laws of physics and designed biological organisms.
Creationism seems more reasonable to me.
Leaving aside the "evolution = abiogenesis" strawman...
There's a joke that says that there's a question on the officers' exam in the UK that asks how to dig a trench. The correct answer is, "Sergeant, dig me a trench!"
Likewise, if you're a three-star general and you want a suspension bridge built across a valley, all you need to do is call up the Army Corps of Engineers and say, "build me a suspension bridge!" So obviously, a suspension bridge is a very simple thing, right?
Except that the description above hides a lot of complexity: you need the Corps of Engineers, and the thousands of people in it. You need steel beams and cables, and bulldozers, and the industrial base to manufacture them, and the mines for the raw materials. You need surveying equipment. You need the command hierarchy to coordinate work. You need the money to pay for it all, which means you need a government to raise taxes. You need to educate the engineers, which means that you need universities, and researchers and teachers, and so on and so forth. So there's an awful lot of stuff that has to exist and work before you can call up the CoE and simply say, "build me a bridge".
"God did it" is the same thing. For it to work, you need a god capable of imagining the life form that will be created, pick a set of physical laws, and so on and so forth. That requires a brain or something equivalent. You also need some way to create a universe with the given laws of physics, or change the laws in an existing universe. In short, the word "God" is a very compact representation for something really, really complex.
If you're going to argue that life is so complex that it could only have been created by an even more complex entity, then you have to ask how God came to be. If life could only have been created by God, then God could only have been created by God2, who could only have been created by God3, and so on and so forth.
As complicated as the current abiogenesis hypotheses might be, at least they have the advantage that they work with things that are known to exist, like water and lightning and clays and whatnot. "God did it" postulates the existence of an entity for which there is no evidence, with unknown properties and composition. So it really doesn't explain anything.