In fact, since we are saying that a few thousands animals (at most) speciated into the millions we have today in the space of only 4300 years, we are not only relying on evolution, but we are relying on hyper-speed evolution. Therefore, if we accept that the story of the flood is true, than we must accept that evolution is true.
This entire thread is based on an equivocation argument. Evolutionists like to label all change as "evolution" and then make equivocation arguments. One type of change (rapid speciation - relying primarily on already existing genetic variation within one basic kind) is labeled "evolution" and is then used as implied "evidence for" another largely different (disputed) kind of change -molecules to man evolution (which involves transspecific change between basic kinds and the creation of new genetic variation and information supposedly by mutation). Evolutionists imply that if you accept the former that you must therefore accept the later (some also imply that if you reject the later then you must also rejct the former).
Even talk Origins admits: "It is true that much microevolution selects from preexisting variation. In animals, that kind of microevolution occurs much faster than waiting for certain mutations to occur, so we often see artificial selection programs stall when they have selected among all the variation that was there to begin with." http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB110.html
More quotes (even from evolutionists) can be provided on the differences.