Well I suppose I’ll be called a heretic for this, but I’m going to have to say that Nebular Theory really makes sense and could be the means by which God created the universe.
Does this diminish our perception of God’s omnipotence? I don’t think so. Could He have created the universe in one instant causing astronomical entities to “appear” millions if not billions of years old? Certainly. But holding to this unverifiable and seemingly ridiculous conception of the universe as being a mere 10000 years old is lunacy and does not reflect an emphasis on finding Truth, rather it reflects one’s attempt to make the “truth” bend to their personal traditions.
The Copernican model of the Solar System was so widely contested by the church of Rome and even the Magisterial Reformers not because of any particular scientific error that was being espoused by this model, but because the language of “the sun rising and setting” seemed to necessitate a geocentric model. The issue wasn’t science, it was a perhaps more important topic, that of the inerrancy of Scripture. While we now accept the terms “sunrise” and “sunset” as “common sense” (that which is commonly observed by the senses, what is immediately validateable by the 5 senses, i.e. it appears to our eyes that the sun literally rises.) terms, but accepting such terms does not deny the scientific fact nor the inerrancy of Scripture.
Much like we do with Revelation and its common sense expressions that are used. I doubt any of us would really hazard to posit that Jesus has a literal sword coming out of His mouth — The Son of the Living God is not a circus clown. So too is it, I believe, with the Genesis 1 account of Creation — common sense terms being used by the writer to describe an event that happened. God in His wisdom spoke to the inspired writers of the Bible in terms that were accessible to them. For God to explain the formation of stars with the protostellar disks and the Chandrasekhar limit would be tantamount to our attempting to describe to those same people what coding in C++ is.
Provide me with reasonable and verifiable scientific theory that supports a 10000 year old universe and I’ll accept it, but until then Genesis 1 is a glorious, inspired and inerrant (in its original manuscripts — though I believe we have a preserved copy of those manuscripts) expression of praise and Theological principle of putting God at the center of the formation of His world that He may do as He pleases with His creation and enact His plans which He had lain before the worlds began; but it is not a literal expression of the means by which the universe was formed.
You might ask then, what about the formation of life? Did God use means? I think certainly. Is evolutionary theory the answer? From what I’ve seen of Evolutionary theory it has about the same chance of being right as a single-celled organism forming from random DNA sequences created by the random assembling of random proteins that were assembled by the random sequencing of random atoms. So, 1 in a kabiliquaddrilion.