Just saw Sipester's question, and this one. As I'm sure you're aware, this will quickly engulf the title subject if we start in on it.
We can discuss at D-O-V, or perhaps in the old Simple Math Problem link that I put up in my response to Sipester.
.....
As it relates to Carson, you bring up a fair point. I haven't looked at his understanding whatsoever. I can easily imagine that his faith in a literalistic interpretation of Scripture has created real problems for his objectivity in considering the age of the universe. OR NOT. But it's possible.
If it IS a cognitive dissonance for him, I can tell you (who was in those shoes 30 years ago, conflict between Genesis and science) that he has very, very few other areas of thought which are so disconnected. That's kind of the main one where somebody like him can seem irrational to those coming from other paradigms.
......
As to abiogenesis - vs - the origin of matter - vs - organisms developing complex mechanisms despite Darwinian selection pressure against the intermittent forms -- yes, those are different basic topics. I think that the third topic is not quite as slam-dunk, or at least as easy to understand, as the first two.
I agree, of course, that the vast majority of academic scientists refer to the theory of macroevolution (natural evolution across species) as a fact. Whether they are overly dogmatic in doing so, and/or suppressive of dissenting scientists, that's a discussion worth another 20 years. But many brilliant scientists have argued against it, which is one reason Darwinism has declined. It's not stupid/crazy to believe in Intelligent Design; it's merely the minority view.
......
Shouldn't we consider ME? I'm not stupid or crazy, and I disagree with a lot of things you see as elementary truth, LR. :- ) Maybe it's possible that the Others are reasonable people.