As to your first point, my qualified skepticism about scientific consensus is based partly on my view of the noetic effects of sin, as you suggest, but also on an understanding of human psychology that would be shared by many non-Christians. In short: it’s human nature to be inclined toward interpretations and conclusions that (i) fit with one’s personal outlook on life and (ii) fit with the expectations of one’s community.

However, I want to critique the examples you chose in #12. You’re failing to make an important distinction–a distinction that is frequently overlooked by Christians discussing these issues. (I’m not sure whether this matters to the specific point you were making, but I do believe it’s an important consideration–and it’s one that deserves attention in such an in-depth discussion of the issues.)

Specifically:

From a purely scientific point of view, the probability that the Red Sea parted when Moses raised his staff is extremely low;

In one sense, that’s true. In another sense, science says absolutely nothing about whether the Red Sea parted when Moses raised his staff.

There is scientific evidence about how the universe works. It tells us that there is no natural way for such a thing to happen. And Christians agree with that conclusion. (The same goes for floating axe heads and resurrections.)

That’s about evidence pointing to natural law.

On the other hand, there is scientific evidence about what has happened in the past. In that category we have distant starlight, paleontology, radioisotopes, or the evolutionary lines of argument you mentioned–biogeography & comparative genetics. This is where non-theistic evolutionists tend to disagree with the general consensus. (I think I would also include evidence about what’s happening in the present, but in places we can’t directly observe or easily control–like observations of the center of the earth, or most astronomy. It’s not identical, but it’s similar.)

That’s about evidence pointing to what happened. Like forensics.

Science tells us that resurrections don’t happen in natural law, but it doesn’t suggest anything about Christ’s resurrection, in the forensic sense.

And usually, when Christians go old-earth or theistic-evolutionist, it’s usually because of what they perceive in the forensic scientific evidence about what actually happened. They’re comparing their interpretation of Scripture’s testimony about what happened, with their interpretation of what the physical evidence tells us about what happened.

Scientific evidence about natural law doesn’t even apparently contradict Scriptural testimony about what happened.