You said “I think evolution is true because it seems true based on the evidence.”
The creationist position is that all of the very same evidence interpreted to support the naturalistic models of reality (i.e. Common Ancestry and Standard Cosmology) can alternatively be interpreted to be consistent with the Biblical model of reality (including the creation account). Therefore, the distinction between the two positions has nothing to do with the existence or amount of evidence, but rather how one's faith presupposition influences the interpretation of the evidence; and which interpretations are preferred. So there is no legitimate, objective, scientific reason for any Christian to set aside their confidence in the reliability of the Biblical account.
The implication of your statement is that creationism is not supported by evidence – which demonstrates that you have not fairly considered the creationist position.
“The more I have looked into the case, the stronger it seems”
This perspective is based more in presupposition, than in an objective consideration of the science involved. Just last year I completes a Bachelor of Science; Majoring in Biology. Even though almost all of my course material was taught from an evolutionary perspective, no evidence was provided that couldn’t otherwise be interpreted to be consistent with the creationist model.
Historically, what we would call modern-science was originally conducted from the Biblical-theistic perspective. Then around the late 1700s, a new framework for science began to be promoted – now called naturalism (the faith paradigm which only considers natural explanations to qualify as truth). Since that time, the naturalistic perspective has become so ubiquitous in science that it is the only scientific perspective that most people ever encounter (i.e. in school, university, science documentaries etc.). This gives the logically false impression that naturalism is the only valid scientific perspective – which subsequently causes some Christians to falsely believe that they are rationally obligated to submit the authority of scripture to secular/naturalistic models.
“I do not think that God would create things so as to deceive us”
But there is no deception. All of the existing evidence can be interpreted to be consistent with the creationist/Biblical model of reality. It is only your perceived obligation to naturalistic science which would cause you to believe otherwise.
“All of this is to say, I have not found an intrinsic contradiction between accepting the physical story behind the Big Bang and evolution, and accepting the resurrection of Jesus and the truth of the gospel. It is possible to hold to the former and have faith in the former simultaneously.”
The Bible promotes (to a degree) freedom of mind and will and exhorts Christians to test all things. So I agree that Christians don’t have to agree on everything. Nevertheless, I think you have failed to consider some serious logical inconsistencies between the secular scientific models and Biblical Christianity.
* Firstly, a metaphor is supposed to relate to something similar; an antecedent. If creation is a metaphor, it is definitely not a metaphor for evolution. There should also be some grammatical indicator pointing the reader to a metaphorical interpretation. No such indicator exists in the texts.
* Evolution at its core is not so difficult to understand. The concept of humans descending from animals is common in many native cultures. Metaphor is unnecessary.
* A common sense rule of interpretation is that the texts should be interpreted according to the grammatical style in which they are written (That is, the grammatical context). The account of origins in Genesis is written as historical account.
* Using the above measures, if creation is not true, then the ultimate author (Who we believe to be God) either didn't know what He was talking about, or He is lying. If any part of scripture is unreliable, then the scripture in its entirety must be considered unreliable. The integrity of the Bible has either been preserved by God or not. If we get to decide which verses are relevant and which verses we can reject, then we make ourselves judges over God's word. Christians are often accused of cherry picking scriptures - if we interpret Genesis as metaphor, then that is exactly what we are doing.
* The concepts of evolution and long ages do not exist in the text. It has to be read into the text from external sources. These theories, whilst popular, are scientifically unverified (and essentially unfalsifiable). They are therefore faith conclusions. Human science is fallible and must be constantly updated and revised. There is no objective scientific reason for a Christian to doubt the reliability of the Genesis account.
* Jesus interpreted Genesis as history. Both Old Testament and New Testament authors interpreted the Genesis account as history. If we accept the secular version of history, we again imply that Jesus and the other authors of scripture are ignorant. And again we call into question the divine inspiration and integrity of the whole Bible.
* The Genesis account is necessary to explain how death and suffering could originate in the creation of a "good God". God created the world corruption free. It was through our sin that corruption entered the universe. Long age theories put death and corruption before humanity. How can a loving God create such a cruel concept as evolution which thrives on suffering?
* Death before sin undermines the entire reason for the gospel of Christ - to save humanity from the consequences of our sin. If death and suffering existed before humanity, then it would be unjust of God to hold us accountable for the impact of sin on the Earth. If we are not accountable then why do we need a Saviour?
The creation account is the foundation of all Christian doctrine and philosophy.
I respect your right to disagree, but I am unconvinced that you have given the issue its due consideration.