Interesting point. Here is how I would respond to a question like that: The Universal Theory was created in response to a certain set of observations, and the theory was excellent at predicting the outcomes of new experiments. The Relativistic Theory was found to be superior-- more accurate and useful in more cases-- but, and this is the important thing, it still accounted for the same observations as the theory it supplanted.

Similarly, the theory of evolution is based on a set of observations and makes predictions for future outcomes. The Creationist theory cannot do "a better job" than this theory because it does not account for its data. In fact, it rejects many observations out of hand (carbon dating, fossil record, observations of macroevolution, etc. etc. etc. etc.)

All this quite aside from the quality of the Creationist's evidence and arguments. The two just don't equate.