"Evolutionary Creationism" is exactly what I was taught in Catholic school. That is, they taught that whatever the scientists were discovering was true was going to be consistent with the basic idea that God Created Everything.
Sister Valentine in 6th grade quoted somebody or other saying "The Bible teaches how to go to Heaven and not how the heavens go."
Now there are a whole lot of Roman Catholics in the USA, and I understand that what used to be considered the "mainstream" Protestant denominations in America--Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, etc--made their peace with science and Scripture being compatible a very long time ago too.
The thing is, lately we've had fundamentalism attacking this comfortable juxtaposition from the right, as it were, denying scientific consensus tout court and holding to what they call Biblical literalism. Meanwhile over here toward the left where people like me live, this whole "God" hypothesis seems increasingly pointless and irrelevant.
So really--from my point of view the only benefit of trying to foster "Evolutionary Creationism" is as a desperate attempt to limit anti-evolutionary Creationism. I'd rather do that with the truth as I see it. I deeply respect a great many sincerely religious people, and these folks I respect have no problem squaring the idea that God created everything with straightforward science about how that "creation" works, that in no way depend on theism to follow. Because at best, religion is about a totally different dimension of human experience than the pragmatics of the material universe--it is about how people ought to treat one another, at bottom.
The kind of stupid "literalism" one gets with fundamentalism--not just Christian fundamentalism in the USA, but also Islamic fundamentalism, Jewish fundamentalism, even Hindu fundamentalism--is really a phenomenon of modernity. In the modern global capitalist world, European and successor nations achieved great success by means of science and technology, and this tipped the balance in human thought between "Logos"--literal and pragmatic thinking--and "Mythos"--metaphorical thinking--toward the former. If you want success and power in a modern setting, you become "businesslike." As Jesus said, you gain the world--and lose your soul. Ironically, this is what has happened with fundamentalism. Fundamentalists try to make a mythic order literal and material. In the name of their mythos, they think it is logos.
Unlike the theists whom I admire, I have come to disbelieve in the actual existence of any supernatural order, but I still believe religious traditions contain a lot of wisdom, or sometimes just views to argue productively against!
So yeah, it might conceivably evolve that we drift back toward our previous national consensus of a broad, generic, shallow sort of religious feeling that compels us to say "Sure, God is behind it all!" when asked but go on practically moment to moment in science without any reference to that notion at all. But I don't think that's likely--either fundamentalism will seize more and more power in the name of the Lord, perhaps provoking some sort of drastic counterreaction at some point. Or more and more people will forget about the "creation" part completely.
Well, perhaps if we find a new balance between Mythos and Logos, that sort of soft religion I mentioned above will actually go deeper, and people will generally have more confidence that there really is a Creator of some kind, without it clouding their minds about pragmatic things. These people wouldn't be troubled by the kind of confused, dim contradictions that caused the mainstream denominations of the 50s and 60s to lose their congregations and mainstream news magazines to ask on their covers, "Is God Dead?" God would be in the kingdom of Not Of This World, but also everywhere in it.
See, last time I did believe in God at all that was the sort of God I sort of believed in. And here I am today a just plain atheist. So if any of the fundamentalists are actually right (which I flat disbelieve they can be) then they are right to hate this sort of halfway thinking "evolutionary creationism" represents too--it would indeed be merely a gateway drug to damnation. If they were right.
Bottom line--maybe. But why would it be a particularly good thing? Unless it is true. Which is what I was taught in Catholic school.
But then I went to Catholic high school in Virginia, where they tried to teach me that evolution as such was "controversial" at best...
And here I am, your friendly village atheist wondering why anyone wants any kind of Creationism at all.