Bible evidence in favour of creationism?

Religion requires certainty, but the certainty we read into the Bible has differed over the ages. The early Christians had that certainty, as they could not imagine the world existing without a creator to bring it into existence, and so did not need the the creation account to be read literally. Indeed, the early Christian Church Fathers, familiar as they were with the Bible, did largely read the Genesis creation history as an allegory.

Augustine emphasised that the text was difficult to understand and should be reinterpreted as new knowledge becomes available. In the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas asserted one should not adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers. We can see in these two examples a focus of interpretation on what is useful rather than a strict and therefore unchanging meaning.

The Book of Exodus (20:11, 31:17) says that God really did create the world in six days, just as a literal reading of Genesis chapter 1 would tell us, removing the flexibility that Augustine and Thomas suggested. More than the Book of Genesis, which Augustine described as so difficult to understand, these passages would seem to provide biblical proof of creationism.

Modern scientific knowledge has made it more necessary than in the past that the Bible provide proof of creation, but at the same time more difficult to do so. On the one hand, science has removed some of that certainty that God created the world, as advances such as the Theory of Evolution no longer require a creator God. On the other hand, the biblical creation story is so inconsistent with scientific knowledge that it is hard to support in a fully literal, creationist sense.

The Book of Job contains allusions to God's creation, but those allusions are similar to ancient Near Eastern creation stories that have long since been dismissed as fiction. In Job 40:25-28 God tells Job that he was able to defeat Leviathan, the great chaos monster of which Psalm 74:14 tells us, "You crushed the heads of Leviathan" and which a seal from Tel Asmar (in modern Iraq) depicts as a seven-headed dragon being defeated by yet another god. This can not be regarded as support for creationism in the normally accepted sense. If our definition of creationism is based on a literal six-day creation, then we must rely on Genesis chapter 1 and Exodus.

No, frankly, there isn't.

Not because it it "wrong" as such, but for the reason that everything in genesis is not testable, cannot be studied, etc. All that is presented is a proposal. Here is an alternative proposal I used the other day (paraphrased):

The world was created by a giant magic spider crab, who likes the colour green; which is why He made a lot of trees green.

The details in the proposal (trees/green) may be consistent with observation, but that is not evidence that the proposal is true. It only says that the argument is not internally inconsistent and/or trivially untrue. This is not evidence in any way, otherwise anything can be shown to be "true". This applies directly to genesis: it is not sufficient to say "see, nothing in there is trivially untrue" (especially when we have to deny existing observation to make even that modest claim).

Since the obvious contrast here (see David's answer) is the scientific approach, and things like evolution; this is testable, and through testing has both proven that it is a useful representation, and provided new approaches (a lot of medical science, for example) that were discovered because of the theory, and their effectiveness directly supports that the theory is valid. The effects of evolution, despite contrary myth, have also been directly observed (not just theorised from fossils). Yes the theory is still evolving [sic], but it is essentially proven.