My level of expertise is a chemistry minor in college and A LOT of reading of the various viewpoints expressed by theists and naturalists alike. (and honestly too much reading on these topics considering that I should be focusing my time on running a business, supporting my family and loving my wife and children) With such a lack of time, I only have the ability to read scientific conclusions and these conclusions will indefinitely be skewed by preconceptions. That is fair.
I do not see what I consider "good science" from guys like Dr. Kurt Wise who believes more of a literal view of the Bible and who indeed even criticizes those in his camp over bad science any worse than the scientist who believes that we evolved over billions of years from bacteria by the power of the sun. The tendency in both conclusion making scenarios tends towards their corresponding preconception. If dating rocks of a known age turns out false, then the creationist naturally will suggest that perhaps the very basis of a dating methods is false where the naturalist will say that this is small relative to the plethora of tests.
For the naturalist, they have to admit that there is a possibility that the ultimate truth of life includes God but they can't let Him in. For this, I refuse to side with biologos who just seem to side with their ideas on the basics of our beginnings and place some god lipstick onto the concept (maybe for the sake of drawing folks into Christianity -I don't know) I for one as a person who came to know Christ and who was instantly changed in my core but nevertheless became a person of intensive study of worldviews thereafter would have smelled this strategy from a mile away. And we need to be careful that we don't so try to be appealing to the world for easy convert making that we concoct a different version of God all together.
Groups which are self defined "theistic evolutionists" put the burr under my saddle that put me up to the sacrifice of monetary success and time away from my family. If ones claim is "naturalism" then I completely understand an evolutionary model because by definition, God is not allowed into the equation. If ones claim is "theist" then I completely understand ones belief that God is quite capable of creating, sustaining and interjecting His authority into every gambit of life including our existence. But if the combination concludes with a model not much different than that of the naturalist model, then I think that this is evidence of trying to entice the non believing world about God who sent His Son to die for us who is therefore beyond us by using the world's terms.
When we look at the life of Jesus, according to the NT, He turned water into wine. If a person claims to be a theistic evolutionist who is more like a naturalist with a "God" label sees this in Scripture, what does he believe? When Jesus according to the NT takes a person's shriveled hand and restores it, what does this same person believe? When the NT has stories of people dying and getting wrapped in 20 lbs of burial cloth to be placed in a tomb for enough time for the people at the time to necessarily believe that he would begin to smell...and for Jesus to bring him back to life, again what does the person with a naturalist form labeled "Christian" say?
If God is a God whose gospel of salvation does indeed incorporate a miracle of all miracles, then this same God can also create and sustain the universe that will add quite a bit of misdiagnosis of the reality of how life came to be as we know it. The idea of time being related to the rotation of the planets should be enough to rattle our thinking about how one comes to determine a date for the age of the earth!
Sorry for the length here...a sound bites can be equated to idiotic so clarification to me is important or don't say anything at all. But in closing, if billions of years is absolutely necessary in a person's worldview, then consider Sailhamer as a much better representation of theism combined with science in relation to long ages.