What is Ken Ham's opinion of denominations that allow for evolution and an old universe?

**Background**: I remember watching most of the Ken Ham vs Bill Nye debate back around 2013-2015. I found the whole thing pointless. My thought was like 'If the guy says (my interpretation of the) Bible implies no evolution, then why are we getting some guy to attack the assumption (the Bible) when we have overwhelmingly available people to accept the assumption (the Bible) and then attack the conclusion (of young Earth, of creationism, etc)?' I kinda thought the whole debate should be about interpretations of the Bible rather than debating with the wind or a brick wall. **Question**: So for actual positions of denominations of **the overwhelming majority of Christianity ** (and not to mention the entire scientific community; so they got BOTH science and religion working against them) including mainstream Christianity like say Catholicism, Orthodox, Protestant, etc, what does Ken Ham or in general what do those young earth/universe creationists say about how (the overwhelming majority of) their fellow Christians interpret Genesis, which is NOT literally/historically? Like I imagine a conversation would go... YEC: The creation story is literal/historical. Overwhelming majority of Christians including mainstream Christians: No, it's actually figurative. Genesis gets literal/historical starting Abram. YEC: No, actually Genesis is literal/historical even before Abram, because ________ (?) _____