How would you defend evolutionary creationism biblically, mark?
I'll give you the brief form and then if you want to pursue it I wouldn't mind if I did. Genesis 1 is in absolutes which can be literal but the focus is on theology. God does not elaborate on creation beyond that. The only real problem is Adam, he had to be specially created and the New Testament is explicit with that. You could easily affirm a progressive evolution from the primordial sea and never stray from sound doctrine, Genesis one is just not an obstacle.
The only thing you would have to compromise is one moment in natural history as it is interjected with special creation. You do that and the conflict fades away tomorrow. As far as elaborate debate and discussion of the hominid record you could even dodge that if you were serious enough.
This is what you do Mallon, establish and defend the New Testament and vital events in the Old Testament (Exodus, Sinai...etc). The trick is to put the fulcrum emphasis is on the reliability of the Bible based on central events. Then you start to look at some pretty puzzling problems like the fact that Old Testament writers really didn't expect God in human flesh. When the Law came it was perpetual but in the New Testament grace both nailed the written code to the cross and fulfilled the righteous requirements of the Law. Just as evolution is progressive so is revelation.
At any rate, your only real obstacle is Adam all the rest is negotiable. Even if you don't take Adam as being literal in Genesis or Romans 5 you just simply concede that both views are valid but incomplete, both from the scientific and theological end. It's kind of like solving an equation, identify what you do know and isolate what you don't. Then when you get to Adam isolated you simply choose to defer to future discoveries and revelation since our knowledge of both is incomplete.
The point is that you don't deconstruct Creationism, you build your theological reasoning from the New Testament. It's kind of like dealing with speaking in tongues, you deal with the handful of verses briefly and instead of turning into a quarrel emphasis central doctrine.
That's the gist of it, just remember the Fundamentalist isn't emphasizing historicity and evangelical thinking is focused on the Gospel. All you really would have to do is de-emphasis certain things as unknown, incomplete and subject to further discovery and fuller revelation.
I know I could pull it off without disturbing a single central doctrine, that is if I believed it.