You wrote, “As it happens, my own religious denomination has found no conflict with evolution for over 100 years.”
My point is that evolution is just not consistent with how Scripture describes “all this” coming into existence. If you and your church preach something extra-biblical, something that is clearly different and incompatible with Scripture as it’s plainly written, then you’re in a frightening place, as you’re either implying or outright saying that the God of creation is so impotent that He’s unable to assure that Scripture is accurate, or that He lied when He communicated His truth with humanity. We’re told in Revelation not to alter any of it, are we not?
Again, it may sound harsh, but a church that preaches something contrary to Scripture is preaching a God different from Scripture, a God who is impotent and aloof from the creation process, and perhaps a liar as well.
As for me, I’ll believe Scripture, which is consistent with the evidence about how “all this” came into being.
The problem here is that all antievolutionary elaborations of creationism also contain huge swaths of extra-biblical emendations, many of which also contradict the plainest sense of scripture.
For example the Bible gives zero indication that Noah's flood had any geological (as opposed to geographical) significance. There's nothing in there, not a single word, claiming, or entailing the claim, that vast quantities of sedimentary strata, and the fossils they contain, were deposited by Noah's flood.
In fact there's some evidence to the contrary, such as a few geographical place names (e.g. the Euphrates River, IIRC) being used both before and after the flood. This suggests a tranquil flood, that wouldn't wipe out and utterly remake such features as rivers, mountains and the like. But you'll find very, very few if any tranquil flood theorists among self-professed "Bible Believers".
Young earth creationists to a man propose a Noachian deluge that, unbeknownst to the Bible, did massive amounts of geological work. Creationists who accept an ancient earth tend to accept a regional flood, or some other scheme.
Nor is this the only example. The Biblical language strongly suggests, for instance, that the "firmament" or "expanse" (Hebrew "raqia") that divides the "waters above" from the "waters below" -- the realm of earth from that of heaven -- was firm and solid, hard like a mirror of beaten metal. For instance birds brush their wings against it, etc. (I can gather up the verses for you if you require.)
But none of this Biblical language stops the majority of creationists from gratuitously and utterly unbiblically proposing that the raqia was something airy like water vapor in the atmosphere, or more commonly a specific layer of water or water vapor high in the atmosphere. Again this is mostly young earth creationists. (Others just ignore the raqia altogether.)
There are few (e.g. dinosaur tracks = "manprint" nutter Carl Baugh) who propose that the raqia was made of ice, and therefore solid. But even they, and other antievolutionary creationists, all join the vapor canopy theorists in a further absolutely unbiblical assumption: That the canopy was destroyed and afterward ceased to exist in conjunction with Noah's flood.
Oh, sure, the Bible doesn't explicitly deny that the raqia suddenly ceased to exist then (or at any other time). But again there's absolutely nothing in the Bible to suggest that it did, and plenty to suggest otherwise. All the Bible says touching in any way on the firmament in relation to the flood is that "the windows of heaven were opened" (or words to that effect, I'm not looking up verses just now). That's it! At most this suggests the raqia was NOT destroyed, otherwise why suggest that "windows" were opened up in it to allow the "waters above" to pass through without destroying it? Or the windows of heaven could just be a poetic allusion to simple (if extraordinarily voluminous) rain.
I've studied the antievolution movement fairly extensively. Fact is there is not a single elaboration of antievolutionary creationism that doesn't extensively substitute the "opinions of men" for the actual Word of God (if the Bible is to be taken as such) and doesn't in the process extensively contradict the most simple and straightforward reading of scripture. It just isn't possible to make a fulsome elaboration (that anyone could pretend to believe) without doing so.