That fairly well sums it up for both sides of the coin.
No, it doesn't "sum it up" for both sides. What you just suggested, regarding the flood was that evidence you can't see would controvert the evidence of the geological column in the Grand Canyon. That is not an inductive argument. An inductive argument extrapolates behavior we can see in small subset of a statespace onto the entire statespace. Yours is an anti-induction but not atypical of the kinds of arguments creationists rely on. Darwinian theory might be wrong, and it's legs of reasoning might be knocked out from under it, as is the case with all scientific theories, but at least it stands up to be knocked down.
That may be what you infer, but that is not what I said. I would fully expect all geological data to support the humanly recorded account of a world wide flood. The Grand Canyon is but a fraction of the geological data that resides untounched and unseen by humans. If you want to put all your stock in a tiny fraction of the data and make extrapolations concerning a PROCESS that has yet to be witnessed by human be my guest. In that case you have more faith than most Bible preachers.