The question holds a bright light to one of the less exploited weaknesses of creationism/ID. These ideologues focus on what they believe are flaws in the evolutionary explanation of the diversity of the species. They are hopelessly ignorant (deliberately so, one assumes) of how much evidence for evolution there is, but if one expands the scope of study to include the platform on which evolution took place, they are doubly ridiculous.
Plate techtonic theory is relatively new (emerged in the 1960s) but it is an example of how a good theory can establish itself in short order when it explains virtually everything in its field. Not only does plate techtonics explain geologic formations such as the Hawaiian Islands and the shapes of the coastlines of S. America and Africa, and the mid-Atlantic ridge, it explains phenomena that religion has always resorted to as divine retribution of sins: earthquakes, volcanoes, tidal waves and so on. And the geological events explained by Plate Techtonics also helps explain the diversity of species, as continents separated at various points in history, stranding species to evolve independently from that point on.
The only geological resource the Bible offers the creationists is the Flood. So everything geological is explained by the flood, from fossils to shapes of land masses. The difference in explanitory power between plate techtonics and the flood should be enough to discredit the creationists (if their inability to explain the biological diversity were not already enough).