You failed to distinguish between young-earth and old-earth creationism in your criticism. I agree that young-earth creationists are unconvincing. Old-earth or progressive creationism is well-documented, both Biblically and scientifically. Failing to distinguish between them is an inadequate argument.
Actually, both of them have to deny the fossil record.
And in both cases they start from the Bible and then select the details they wish to prove their assumptions.
Darwin was led to his remarkable discovery by the evidence. Since then the evidence has amassed to support his initial discovery ten thousand fold.
So in evolution we have a fossil record that agrees with contemporaneous examples of species selection. Since 1953 we've known the very structure of the genetic blueprints called DNA. And many living creatures now have their genes mapped and compared to others to demonstrate past genetic links.
Creationism and Intelligent design, on the other hand, have hand waving criticisms from poorly applied "statistical impossibilities." In general they don't as much attempt to prove their case as to poke holes in various fossil chains -- hoping against logic that therefore if they can muddy the water -- people will leap on their theory as the ONLY replacement. A logical fallacy of its own.
It's all the argument they can muster.