We are all looking at the same piece of evidence, (tropical plants in an arctic region), but clearly there are varying opinions on how and why that piece of evidence exists in that region.
The only possible way of coming up with a different explanation than continental drift is if you ignore the other geologic evidence. The find in and of itself is one piece of evidence but what you also have to consider is its depth, the kind of rock it was found in, etc. Once you have all the pieces there is only one BEST explanation. The alternative, that the arctic was simply tropical at one time, does not explain all the evidence and therefore must at this time be rejected.
For this reason, it is NOT simply two different solutions looking at the problem from two different perspectives. One solution is simply insufficient. For the explanation to change, there needs to be an acquisition of NEW evidence that forces the current explanation to be abandoned. For example, if a fossil of a tropic plant was found in what was obviously a glacial deposit.
Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)