The way the argument is currently framed (creation vs. evolution) is flawed. It does not accurately describe the position of either party. This must be changed.
People generally view Creation as a matter of faith, not science. It is irrelevant whether you are an old Earth or a young Earth Creationist. Outsiders see them both as religious extremists.
Biblical Evolution is a more accurate term to describe the Creationist’s position. Biblical Evolution is the scientific fact that different species of a taxonomic genus or family evolved from a common ancestor. This ancestral pair survived a worldwide flood in the distant past. When this flood happened is debatable, but that it happened is not.
Identifying as biblical evolutionists puts the focus back on science instead of faith. Even if you take out the flood as the origin of the pairs, all the DNA and scientific evidence support this form of evolution. Biblical Evolution postulates that evolution is true, but it has limits. It can only go so far.
Our opponents should not be categorized as evolutionists because we are both evolutionists. A better term would be Darwinists. A Darwinist believes not only that the species of the same taxonomic family had a common ancestor (i.e., Biblical evolution) but that the different families did as well. It is the notion that a petunia and a goldfish are related if you go back far enough. Dinosaurs and trees are distant cousins.
Of course, this is foolishness, and that is the point. There is no evidence for this. All the scientific evidence points to Biblical evolution. That is the nice thing about the Bible. It is true at all times and in all places.
When the argument is reframed like this, it is the Darwinist who squirms from the get-go. He agrees with Biblical evolution at every point and cannot attack it. He is the one who has to explain what Darwinian evolution is and why it is true.
He could question a worldwide flood, but he would be arguing against a ghost. Biblical evolution does not have to take a stand on when the Flood occurred. Maybe it was 4000 years ago, maybe 15000, maybe more. Even if we accept the hypothesis that there was no worldwide flood, there is still no evidence to support Darwinism. The goal is to always keep the ball on his side of the field. Make Darwinists defend the indefensible.
What fun to watch a debate like this. Every scientific fact a Darwinist would make would support Biblical Evolution. He would have to resort to speculation or character assassination. There is no other option. The Biblical Evolutionist could attack at will, always looking at the facts. Darwinists would always be on the defensive, looking like fools.
This is a necessary change if Creationists want the scientific community to take them seriously. Words are powerful weapons, more powerful than swords. Changing the lingo from macro and micro evolution to Biblical and Darwinian Evolution would have a devastating effect on the secular mindset of our time.