Let's be honest here: The Bible's view on origins is perfectly clear. There is no room for Evolution, there is no room for long ages, the only feasible interpretation of Genesis is "Young" Earth Creationism (YEC). And all the way up until the 1800s, this was the dominant view. Even heretical Christians never dared say the earth is millions of years old. Ironically, Augustine, the early Christian writer to whom Old Earthers usually refer in an attempt to prove there are alternative interpretations of Genesis (because of course, a 4th century writer is more valid than every Prophet and Apostle that ever wrote Scripture) believed the earth was less than 6,000 years old, calling anyone who said it was older "deceived", and any document that said it was older "mendacious".
Further evidence of its clarity comes from the fact that Old Earthers tacitly admit that it is clear. Every time they say things like "Genesis isn't supposed to be taken literally", they are admitting that the "Young" earth view is what the Bible literally says. And when they appeal to non-Biblical sources, be it Augustine or Bill Nye, to say that the Bible must be interpreted to account for Evolution, they suggest they have no Biblical sources.
And they don't. Seriously, ask them for Biblical evidence that Genesis need not be taken "literally" (the actual Creationist view is that it should be taken as it is written), they will never be able to provide any. The last person I asked about this actually admitted he doesn't have any, and the only reason he believes Genesis is allegorical is that "science" tells us Evolution and the Big Bang are facts, and so he chooses the allegorical interpretation because otherwise he would have to say God lied.
Can you imagine treating anyone else this way? Go to the Answers in Genesis website. It's filled with evidence in favor of Genesis, both explaining why Genesis should be taken as historical narrative, and giving scientific and historical evidence for the truth thereof, as well as refutations of Evolution and expositions of the philosophy thereof. Now let's imagine a Theistic Evolutionist finds the website, decides they disagree with it, and so rather than disagreeing with Ken Ham (and joining atheists in mocking and even slandering him), they send him an email thanking him for his eloquent defence of Evolution. Realistically speaking, why shouldn't they? The difference between Ken Ham and the Bible isn't the view they present on origins, but their ability to verbally correct you if you misinterpret them. But if you're going to take the Bible as presenting the Old Earth view, or at least not presenting the Young Earth view, you might as well take Ken Ham as Darwin's most vocal supporter.
This is not how the Bible was designed. If God wanted us to read His word and draw our own conclusions, He'd have sent an ink blot test, not a book. If you are a Christian who takes your faith seriously, grow a spine and take every aspect of it as you find it. If that means atheists mock you, tough. Jews and Romans nailed Jesus to a cross, why should you escape persecution for the faith? If you think you know better than God, you might as well join His enemies, and if you're so inept at reading His word, you might as well interpret Ken Ham in the same way. There is no scenario in which trying to merge Evolution, the Big Bang and other related myths with the Bible makes sense.