The primary problem with creationism - which explains the issue raised in the OP is the egocentricity of the typical creationist. They start with the belief that their views are inherently superior to any alternatives.
This is why creationists make claims about what the evidence shows, without having investigated the evidence.
This is why creationists feel that any excuse to dismiss contrary evidence is adequate.
This is why creationists jump to conclusions based on a superficial look at the evidence - and sometimes even complain that others actually dare to look at the evidence in more detail and find out that the creationist is wrong.
This is why creationists regard any criticism of somebody on "their" side as wrong - even if it is true - while happily making and supporting attacks on their opponents, even if those attacks are false.
This is why creationists reverse the meaning of "biased" and "unbiased".
This is why there unresolvable conflicts between creationists. Each starts with the view that their own version is better and neither will change their minds.
In short, to answer the OP, the only options that typically matter to creationists are rivals that are strong enough to be a threat (which are "wrong" and must be disproven) and their own views (which are "obviously" true to everyone). Anything else need not be considered.
™ Version 4.2
