I am using this as a point to show that creationism doesn't have to mean that the earth was created in the last 6 thousand years, and it doesn't exclude evolution.
I think you'll find that it does; if only because the only single position all the disparate camps of creationism can agree on is that they, universally, deny the scientific consensus of common descent and evolution via mutation and natural selection.
And personally I don't particularly see why there needs to be any compromise at all. Evolution is largely true; it's the scientific, accurate explanation of the history and diversity of life on Earth. Any competing model derived from religion instead of science is necessarily wrong and inaccurate; I don't see the point of "compromising" between good science and bad religion, between the truth (as we understand it) and delusion.
There's a fringe controversy, of course, here where we're in the middle of it; but creationists have never, ever prevented meaningful biology from being done. Most biologists are only distantly aware that there's any sort of public controversy at all.
Why do we need the compromise? Creationists are wrong and impotent. What's worth compromising with, there?