That would require creationists to understand notions like "evidence" (and scientific methods such as the ways in which evidence is used to add to/build upon theoretical frameworks). Evolution is so fundamental to the sciences that fields rest upon it and its concepts have been used widely in applications via e.g., machine learning. It is not a theory in the sense that e.g., special relativity is, which can be expressed with some equations. It is vastly greater with a vastly greater amount of diverse sources of evidence. It isn't just a tool like SR but broader than any single discipline with researchers adding to it with backgrounds as diverse as theoretical physics to evolutionary psychology. In other words, it has been used for so many successful models & predictions across the sciences that to truly question it requires a grasp of the heart of the scientific methods and a deep understanding of a number of fields (mathematics, fields in biology, anthropology, statistics, etc.).
Hence, the vast majority of creationist arguments address strawman arguments by misrepresenting scientific methods, fields, and findings themselves, not just evolutionary theory.
Asking them to understand the sciences enough to understand the relevant physical evidence in such a way as to present anything that resembles in argument is, alas, too much for all but maybe a handful (whose arguments are sophisticated but no less wrong and no less dependent upon refutations that can't be used in theories or models yet have often been falsified).
