[SeekAndFind]

It could, but it doesn't. Most creationists I've ever discussed the issue with rule evolution out a priori - there is no evidence of any kind that could possibly convince them that the bible isn't literal history. Their knowledge of the actual details of evolutionary biology is generally very poor anyway.

Or the evidence mustered by evolutionists to support their claim is generally very poor anyway.

[Youngblood]

Or the evidence mustered by evolutionists to support their claim is generally very poor anyway.

If that were the case, creationists wouldn't need to resort to deception and misrepresentation to convince those sympathetic to them that the supporting evidence for evolution was poor or to construct such ridiculous arguments as they have in the past in support the likes of "scientific creationism".

[The Evolutionist]

“Or the evidence mustered by evolutionists to support their claim is generally very poor anyway.”

.....And what evidence have the creationist ever provided other a book called “The Bible”?