The other missing parameter of the poll is that both perspectives can be equally correct, and, actually, I suspect that this is the case.
The 'I'm tired and this has gotta be the short version' goes like this;
Up close and personal in each moment of our 'reality' the appearances are such that time, motion and sequentiality have 'existence'. If we can look at all the 'moments of reality' (MoR), sequentially, temporally, then evolution can be understood and supported
within that context.
This is where the evolutionists can dance.
From sufficient 'distance' there is no sequentiality to MoR. Each and every MoR has mutual and simultaneous 'existence'. All omniverse exists at once.
A short quote from Richard Feynman from, "Genius: The Life & Science of Richard Feynman";
"The laws of nature are not rules controling the metamorphosis of what is into what will be. They are descriptions of patterns that exist, all at once, in the whole tapestry... The four-dimensional space-time manifold displays all eternity at once."
The only 'thing' that can even be said to actually 'move' is Consciousness. MoR are what the quantum possibility/information waves (QP/IW) collapse into, ultimately. I equate the sum total of all QP/IW with/as Mind. The only way to posit any evolution from this scenario is by 'consciousness' visiting 'certain' MoR and not others, sequentially. This would again 'simulate' evolution. The 'context of motion' is necessary for 'evolution'.
But viewed as it is 'in toto', a vast array of simultaneously 'existing' MoR, within Mind, one might well ask, "Who's Consciousness? Who's Mind?" There is always a certain probability that Consciousness and Mind might require some sort of 'entity' to 'display' these 'qualities'. Perhaps not.
This is where the godfolk can dance.
So, depending on 'perspective' and 'context', both views can be equally 'correct' and, of course, likewise, equally incorrect.
Perhaps instead of the seven blind men arguing over the appearance of the elephant before their individual senses, they might be better served to communicate their perspectives and a subsequent communal synthesis might provide the most fruitful understanding?