Sure. Adam & Eve could be a case study regarding how people think critically about a specific issue. but I don't have a set direction in mind, so I'm willing to wander in other directions.
... apart from the ways in which we evaluate the person and historicity of Jesus, Himself, I'd be tempted to think that our parallel evaluation of the possible historicity of Adam and Eve would indeed be THE case study here. I know that for me, perhaps more than any other issue, I've always struggled, and still struggle to "accept" that these two ancient literary figures had any kind of actual historical existence. And of course, in an almost stereotypical form for our era, I'd make the claim that I have been using "critical thinking" all along, even if in increasing levels, to wrestle with how the Eden account, or the first 11 chapters of Genesis play into the intersection between our concept of Creation and the actual, possibly evolutionary, past.
I'll throw out 2 factors that are important to me. First is an admission of trust. Wrapped up in that is an admission that we are finite and can't know everything, and at some level we all must trust something. So, do we know what it is we're trusting? Do we know our own weaknesses?
I'll admit at the outset here that trust as an operative part of my method of evaluation has been only tenuously attached to any particular individual academics or other leaders. For instance, for some, their pastor is the sole source of information by which to evaluate the Bible and one's perception of "Creation."
Second is an ability to grasp different perspectives. For a time I was poor at it, but in general I think understanding the perspective of others is something that grows with experience and maturity. I've been in conversations with evolutionists where my fellow creationists mistake me for an evolutionist, and sometimes the evolutionists themselves think they have "converted" me. I take that as a compliment - as an ability to immerse myself in that view and see it from the inside out.
I'm kind of like you in this respect, BUT for me, it's always been a matter of "realization" over trust; I don't trust human authority all that far although I do respect the power of human intelligence and the ability to "realize" that some things in the world exist and that we have to grapple with making heads or tails out of the things we find. Realization, along with questioning, have been high up on my conceptual totem-pole. Trust in specific persons, not so high.
In sum, I'd say that I've tended to take a more expansive heuristic in exploring and comparing options between various scholars while trying to critically think through the issues and while attempting to make my mind up. So, I'll admit that when it comes to how I think of 'creationism' in context with the Bible rather than some other religious work, I've always had a more or less BioLogos type disposition toward approaching the assortment of issues embedded in this area of inquiry.
