Life - How Did it Get Here? By Evolution or Creation?

That's the title of a well meaning (but deeply flawed) book published by Jehovah's Witnesses, known as the "Creation" book (to Witnesses). OK. I'll now answer the question it poses, absolutely, finally, and irrefutably. Only joking. Let's think about the question itself though. I'd like to suggest, no assert (posit? I hate that word...) that the question itself is questionable, that it is a false choice type of logical fallacy. In other words: what's preventing life from "getting here" by Evolution AND Creation, OR neither? The question is loaded, so to speak. Of course the unnamed author(s) of the book already have a head start on us - they know the answer, and work backwards from that (so that you're probably best reading the last "preachy" chapter first to understand the bias of the whole book). Now, I'm not saying that life DIDN'T get here by creation, but neither am I ruling evolution out. I think that the exclusive claims of the Creationists (Witnesses are day-age Creationists) and the Evolutionists are both incomplete without the other, and perhaps they are both incomplete even with the other. My personal opinion is that there is more to life than meets the eye, but of course I can't prove it in a lab - nobody can. I do feel that Evolution has not satisfactorily explained the emergence of life from non-life (though I've read the explanations), but that evolution does seem to be at work in nature seems obvious, and is put well here by Carl Sagan (Cosmos p42):

The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a great designer; perhaps some species are destroyed when the designer becomes dissatisfied with them, and new experiments are attempted on an improved design. But this notion is a little disconcerting. Each plant and animal is exquisitely made. Should not a supremely competent designer have been able to make the intended variety from the start? The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistent with an efficient designer (although not with a designer of more remote and indirect temperament).

If nature is a car, then perhaps the evolutionists see natural selection as the engine, and point to the wheels moving as proof of the correctness of their theory. Yet the creationist sees the foot on the pedal, how it controls the engine, and how the hand at the wheel steers the car, and perhaps sees no (need for the) engine at all. We can see how both views are only correct when they include the other. I know metaphors can be made to prove anything, but maybe, just maybe, on this twisty road that led to us, that's how things are.