I personally try to avoid framing my position in terms of “accepting evolution.” Instead, I appeal for honesty and understanding about it.
I allow them the possibility of a recent creation with the appearance of age, or that the appearance of common ancestry between humans and animals might be just that—an appearance. However I do make it clear that that would involve the creation of evidence for a history of events that never happened. Surprisingly, some YECs do seem to find omphalos more palatable than evolution.
The main point that I make is that while rejecting science may be faith, misrepresenting science is dishonesty. I point out that anything you claim about science can and will be fact-checked, and demonstrable falsehoods will just undermine their credibility in the eyes of anyone who happens to do so.
Some of them say, “Science needs to be interpreted to fit Scripture, not the other way around.” My response is, fine, but you need to do so without introducing maths errors, fudging or cherry-picking the raw data, taking shortcuts, exaggerating or downplaying the significance of errors and disagreements, quote mining, or resisting critique. Basically, without lying. If you can’t do that, then you need face the fact that maybe you have misunderstood Scripture.
One thing that I’ve recently been starting to say is that anyone who wants to tackle the subject of evolution in the church needs to be properly trained to do so, by getting a university degree in the subject. If you don’t properly understand how science works, you will get things wrong and you will end up trying to debunk a straw man caricature of science that bears no resemblance whatsoever to what real scientists actually do.