I'm not going to have time to elaborate and defend or explain this, but I thought it would be helpful for people.  Evolution, of course, posits that all life comes from a 'common ancestor.'  

That's not entirely true, of course.  The facts are such that it seems that in a number of cases, its more reasonable to conclude that live arose more than once, independently.  But that's 'abiogenesis,' not 'evolution.'  'Evolution' is not affected by findings in abiogenesis which might suggest multiple common ancestries.

As far as I know, IDers are willing to accept the 'common ancestor' assumption.

What evolutionists don't know, and many 'creationists' too (I'm thinking of the great many who scoff at evolution but haven't particularly looked into things), is that it is perfectly reasonable, instead of starting with the assumption and choosing to interpret in light of that assumption, start with the facts and deduce a different position from those facts.  I believe, like many others, that the facts argue for what I'm going to call 'polyphyly.'

Polyphyly is obviously an evolutionary term, used by evolutionists, without any hint that it could be used against them.  So, the reader should beware that I am to some extent co-opting a pre-existing term.  If I can think of a better one, I'll use it.  Basically, I am defining polyphyly to be:

The view that the evidence best supports the argument that observed variability with observed limits best substantiates the inference that there are multiple 'common ancestors.'

Ie, there may be a range of variation within a particular genome of phylogeny, but there are limits, as well.  The phylogeny is described in terms of its limits, not its variation.

I believe the evidence is best interpreted in this way.  Note, while this view is consistent with an explicit Creationist POV, it is also consistent with a great deal of explicit evolutionary material, as well.  However, this interpretation of the evidence requires no escape to 'time.'  You could have polyphyly over any amount of time, a great or a little.

I am finally getting around to putting this out there because of the rank ignorance among the evolutionists on this forum about what sort of things creationists really believe.  I typically don't like getting into discussions on 'creationism' because most forum participants are nowhere close to being able to examine it objectively.

This view is even consistent with the 'fossil record' athough clearly I have different ideas about what that would mean.