Creation "evidence" happens to be about as convincing as evidence for flying saucers and extra sensory perception.
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.
To the adherent to evolutionary theory, of course.
To the adherent to ID theory, claims about evolution are about as convincing as evidence for flying. . .well, you get the picture.
In the end, it all boils down to what one chooses to believe.
What I love is the reasoned, careful, well-thought-out evolutionist explanations of how highly complex "problem" structures like the eye evolved. They only require that you spot the evolutionist the parts of the structure that are the most crucial and complex, like (in the case of the eye) photoreceptor cells.
Sort of reminds me of the way a UFO nut can spin you a great tale of the grand conspiracy behind the saucer activity--all they need is that you spot them the assumption that a highly advanced race would cross billions of miles of vacuum to perform anal probes and mutilate cows, while always ensuring that the instruments on their craft closely resemble those that earthlings are using on their aircraft at the time of the abductions.