The best take I've heard on this topic comes from Pr. Bill Cwirla, one of the hosts of the internet radio show 'The God Whisperers,' a widely respected LCMS pastor and also a trained and experienced chemist. He takes a 'from above' and 'from below' stance, similar to the two kinds of righteousness or other good Lutheran dichotomies. It has to do with the ontology of creation, how we know what we know, and for what purpose will we use this knowledge.
From below, all we can know is what we can see with our own eyes, what we can see and feel and measure and observe. From below, we can only know that the earth appears to be very old, that the current state of creation seems to have come about gradually over time, and that various identified processes seem to be at work, such as plate tectonics, climate change, evolution, etc. If we are doing science, and working within the framework of scientific thought, we accept these processes as tools useful for explaining and understanding the world in order to make use of it - not uncritically, but with a healthy skepticism typical of all scientific thought. In the pursuit of scientific advancement we accept these processes, once proven, as true within the framework of science, in a utilitarian sense.
From above, however, God has made it known through the Holy Spirit to mankind since the beginning of the world (2 Pet 1:21) that God created the world, that he created it within a short span of time, the order of creation, the means of creation, and the identity of the Creator. We do not know these things by scientific observation but through revelation alone. Not only this, but scripture clearly states that is through faith alone that we know that creation is a direct work of God. It is "by faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." (Heb 11:3). As it pertains to faith, theology, doctrine and godly living, we believe what we have received from the hand of God. Therefore we accept these revelations as true, because of our faith in the One who transcends time and space, who is the "Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out, who spreads out the earth with all that springs from it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it." (Isa 40:28)
So when the question of origins arises, it is best to know for what purpose the question is being asked, whether matters of faith or scientific endeavor. Then we can know which viewpoint is useful, God's view from above, or man's view from below.
This admittedly pragmatic approach goes a long way toward reconciling the two views in my mind, at least. It demonstrates why forcing the theological view into science is not really helpful or desirable; It is not falsifiable, demonstrable or repeatable, and therefore not scientific by definition. And it also demonstrates why trying to force a pseudo-scientific understanding onto a theological context is not really helpful or desirable either, despite what Ken Ham may say; It doesn't preach the free forgiveness of sins for the sake of Jesus Christ alone.
