God and science
The first deconstruction question I asked myself is whether the Bible can be interpreted to allow for an old universe. I've lived with this assumption since I was a teenager, but I want to know for sure.
Does the Bible explicitly allow for an old universe? or does my acceptance of science require me to make compromises with my faith?
The Bible isn't the Word of God. As such, God won't be offended when we disregard a factual error in favor of a scientific understanding. In fact, there's a large group of Christians and scholars who don't believe that the creation story is meant to be taken literally at all. Many scholars note that the opening chapter of Genesis is written in poetic Hebrew style (many evangelical scholars reject this interpretation, while others deny that this impacts its literal truth). The casual reader can see that there is a set of plain, basic contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. As a singular example, God went through two separate processes to create everything: "man" and "woman" were created together (and ostensibly, as part of a large group) on the sixth day of Genesis 1's account, while in Genesis 2's account, a single man was created first before any other creature, and then a single woman was created last after all other creatures had been made and named. This basic contradiction means one of these accounts is wrong. Which account is accurate? Is either account accurate? What does this mean for the rest of Genesis?
This prompts a new but related question: How much of the early books of the Bible is factual at all? And does it matter? These are the questions that evangelicals fear, and this is why they dedicate so much time fighting for the infallibility of scripture - if you open the door to asking which parts of scripture are "true", then the whole body of scripture comes into question. It's a slippery slope best avoided. "The Bible is infallible and contains no contradictions, even if we can't always see how." is the canned response that comes to mind. I reject that line of reasoning, because it's not reason at all - it's dogma. From the outside looking in, it has nothing to do with faith and everything to do with avoiding questions.
The composoition of Genesis
For a variety of reasons, scholars believe that Genesis itself is an amalgam of stories and myths originating in Mesopotamia, early Israel, and the surrounding region. It appears to have been written by multiple authors in multiple styles across a large period of time (evidenced by variations in grammar and word usage that wouldn't ordinarily be attributed to a single person or time period). At worst, Genesis seems to be a fabrication. At best, it's a patchwork of stories that has been highly editorialized over the centuries, likely no longer closely resembling the original stories.
The inspiration of Genesis
So why is Genesis in the Bible at all? Is it "inspired scripture"? How can it be "inspired scripture" if, at best, it's mostly or entirely factually inaccurate? In response, I would say that Genesis is in the Bible because it's "inspired scripture", and it's "inspired scripture" because it's "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness". θεόπνευστος doesn't mean that God dictated it for us and it must be true. It means that it is useful for our spiritual development, and therefore it is θεόπνευστος. The skeptical evangelical might ask why God would use fabricated stories to teach us truth when he could instead just use true stories, to which I would respond that Jesus, who self-identifies as the Way, the Truth, and the Life, is Christianity's most famous purveyor of fabricated tales used to teach spiritual truths. The only difference is, he called them "parables". I see no reason why Genesis must be truthful in order to be useful.
Statement of faith
I believe that the first several books of the Old Testament (including the Torah, Joshua, Judges, and possibly Ruth) are at least partially fabricated - not in the sense that they are false, but rather in the sense that they have evolved over the millennia. The stories are likely rooted in truth, but the true details have been lost to time and will probably never be recovered.
The early books of the Bible are still θεόπνευστος because they teach us many stories. Some stories inspire us to have faith in the face of adversity, other stories teach us to approach God with humility and gratitude, and others still teach us how to treat one another. Some other stories describe horrible atrocities that have been committed in the name of God and serve as warnings against using violence to advance God's peaceful kingdom.
I believe that the scientific method, while imperfect, has rapidly and massivey improved life on Earth for most of its inhabitants. We have learned much by applying logic and reason to the natural sciences.
I believe that in the beginning, God created the laws of physics. The laws of physics contain within themselves everything sufficient to bring about the universe as we know it. I don't know if God chose to specially guide the evolution of the universe, or if he simply ensured that life would emerge and left the universe alone until it did. I believe that God either caused life to evolve on Earth, or else set up Earth in such a way that life would eventually evolve without his further intervention.
Conclusion
For some interesting information on how scholars determined that Genesis is likely the result of multiple authors over many time periods, see What Are the J, E, and P Texts of Genesis? by Prof. Kip Wheeler of Carson-Newman University, a Christian college in Tennessee. For a theological perspective from a conservative evangelical who also accepts the Big Bang and the theory of evolution, check out Finding God in Science by Michael O'Connell, a rocket scientist at NASA.