In my view, this turns out to be a false history @Chris_Falter. On this one, it would be great to get @tremperlongman and @TedDavis and @JRM 's thoughts.
By "traditional" I mean "within the range of acceptable interpretations in the pre-science era."
This is an entirely defensible definition of "traditional" and shuffles the deck. We find that traditional interpretations does not include Ken Ham style interpretations of Genesis which arise in the 1800s. Moreover, insisting on a historical Adam, to the point of dividing the Church, also is not a traditional view of our faith, which centers on Jesus not Adam. Traditionally, we see people outside the garden an old earth an more. None of this was insisted upon as central to our faith. This is part of what tradition gives us, a correct ordering of our priorities, and a proper grounding on the revelation of Jesus instead of human efforts to study nature.
For example, look at the Book of Enoch, which one of the extra biblical sources that YECs draw upon, part of the Ethiopian Bible, and dated to about 200 BC. Most interestingly, this is where we see most clearly the term "Son of Man" as a Messianic reference, and may be what Jesus was was referring to in his ministry (the Daniel passage notwithstanding). Without arguing if this book is in the cannon (it is not), we can take it as a 2nd Temple example of CS Lewis's theologized fiction. It prominently includes non-Adamic beings that are biologically compatible with humans, and produce giants for hybrid offspring. It also clearly teaches that Eve was not the first woman created by God, but that there were others. This notion of non-Adamic beings is found throughout Jewish, Christian, and pagan interpretations of Genesis for 2 thousand years, and it is never considered heretical in of itself (though it has at times been mixed with other heretical teachings and racism).
About "traditional", knowing the history I am unwilling to give rhetorical high ground to scientific YECs on this. They are not defending a traditional interpretation at all, but promoting a theological innovation they have no authority to make. The belief in 6-day creation is found in the traditional interpretation (see Origen) but it is never seen as central to the faith or provable by studying nature as a foundational sign of God. In contrast with their theological innovation, I root my faith in Jesus. To be clear, my problem is not with YEC, but with a science-rooted faith.
For those that think that this is just "playing games with words," it is not. Rhetoric is important because careful and honest word choice is what guides people to correct understanding. Debates are lost over word choices like this, and entire histories rewritten. It is critical to present an accurate view of these things, and the scientific emphasis of YEC is a major deviation from traditional theology. For me, the process of affirming evolution was a return to orthodox theology. It was repentance from these sorts of theological innovations that I had no right to make or impose on others.
I affirm the traditional interpretation of Scripture that places Jesus above the diverse understandings of Genesis the Church has always harbored. Nothing in evolution requires us to deviate from it.