Sorry I never cam back to this, totally forgot about it.
It isn't my issue with creationism, it's yours, or rather, it's the most significant problem faced by creationism: there's no theoretical framework. That you have a cacophony of opinion preventing creationist cooperation in threads is just a side effect. The real issue is that if you want to replace evolution then you have to interpret the available evidence within some theoretical framework. Unfortunately there's no discernible scientific framework that is shared by creationists.
As I had said, this is because you use such a large definition of ''creationist'' that you are bound to incorporate different interprative frameworks, while you compare it with a more restrictive definition of evolutionist with only one interprative framework (Neo-Darwinian evolution).
But if you compare apples with apples, meaning a group of people who share the same framework to another group who share the same framework, you'll basically observe the same things in terms of agreement/disagreement. They'll all agree on the core ideas and the very straightforward interpretations of some facts, and you'll be bound to find a subgroup who disagrees with the majority on pretty much all the rest.
Example: Young earth creationist all share the same interprative framework, and so for example they will agree that the grand canyon was carved during the flood. However, how and when this was done is a subject of disagreement. Was it by the breached-dam theory ? Or by the receding floodwaters ? etc.
Not only do creationists have no scientific framework, there's not even a creationist consensus around any kind of framework. Is the Bible absolutely literally inerrant? Mostly literally inerrant? Somewhat literally inerrant? Not literally inerrant, but God created species, not evolution? Is God Christian? Moslem? Hindu? Semitic? Buddhist?
This is a matter of where a given group get their interprative framework. Is it from the Quran, the Bible, etc. ? Obviously, different sources will give different interprative frameworks.
And, as you highlight, the same source can give different frameworks. Christians read genesis today and interpret it in wildly different ways sometimes, and this leads to different frameworks. On this fact, I can concede that you have a point that there is an 'extra level' of disagreement. But even then, it has little to do with the ambiguity of the text itself, but rather how much weight a given person gives to modern scientific theories in interprating the text. (since before the 18th century, there was basically only the YEC interpretation).
In any case, this has little relevance. A given framework should be judged on it's own merit, not from where it comes and how it was invented. The contrary is simply the genetic fallacy.
Creationists have one unifying principle: evolution is wrong. They disagree about everything else. They disagree about how it is wrong (they rarely understand how evolution even works), and they disagree about where the rest of science is wrong, and when they agree about that they disagree about how it is wrong.
Maybe when using such a large definition of creationism as to make it meaningless, this may be true. (and in fact, it isn't, since you included budhism into it which does just fine with evolution)
But you are wrong when looking at a particular framework. The unifying principle of YEC is their common interpretation of genesis. They oppose evolution because it comes in direct contradiction with the frameworkd they think is true.
™ Version 4.2
(1)