The same way you think about creationism, the same way I think of evolution. Every which way I turn it, I see it as being falsified by all angles. That is to say, even if I was not a creationist, I would be not thin kthe ToE would be true.
The problem with this approach is that it ignores evidence.
The theory of evolution is something that can be supported easily by real world evidence. Members of all cultures can research the topic and see that evidence. There is worldwide agreement on the broad outline of evolution, and disagreements are primarily about new finds and small details.
Creationism and all of it's related beliefs (YEC, global flood, etc.) are the opposite. They do not stem from real world evidence but are held
in spite of real world evidence! These beliefs are not worldwide but restricted to members of certain fundamentalist religions. And there are serious disagreements among those religions. There are some 38,000 different flavors, sects, and denominations of Christianity alone.*
In science when new evidence is found old theories are modified or discarded. With creationism you are more likely to have a schism and split a denomination in two. The reason is science relies of evidence while creationism relies on belief.
Your statement, above, that you would not consider evolution true--no matter what--is a statement of belief, not a reliance on evidence.
*
Source
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
™ Version 4.2
