IMHO, your question cannot be explored without the definition of the terms and the scope of the inquiry.
For instance, some creationists of the Judeo-Christian stripe hold to the young earth view, i.e. the literal interpretation of Genesis from man's point of view. That would put the age of the earth at about 6000 years. But among this group are those who see an old universe preceding a young earth and others who see both as young.
Other Judeo-Christians look at Genesis as a metaphor and thus do not have an issue with the age of the universe or earth. Some who are not Judeo-Christians believe that God initiated it all and then withdrew and thus do not have an issue with the age of the universe. Both of these may be loathe to be considered under the umbrella of intelligent design, their belief in a Designer notwithstanding.
I suspect there are creationists who are not Judeo-Christian and have some other theory (ravens, turtles or whatever.) They may or may not have an issue with the age of the universe.
The directed panspermia crowd would likely agree on the dating of the universe and earth but would place the origin of life much earlier in a galaxy far, far away.
And then there's my view, that due to the inflationary model and relativity - and because God is not "in" time, the only observer of creation and the author of Genesis - that both statements are true. The universe is approximately 6000 years old (the Adamic age plus creation week from God's point of view as observer) - and is also approximately 15 billion years old from our space/time coordinates as observer.
So, shall we find agreement on the terms and scope and pursue the inquiry - or shall we agree to disagree and table it?
Is there a school of "undirected" panspermia which believes life could have arisen long ago and far away and the elementary particles dispersed by supernova explosions?
And why isn't there a panova crowd?
I'll stick with science, and read scripture as metaphor where it seems to be in conflict. That's Galileo's method, and it's also the method suggested by the Pope. It works for them and it works for me.
A-G, that is brillant. That is very similar to my view although much better articulated.
This is a variation on the assertion that God created the universe with an apparant history. To which, I ask, what is the point of planting false evidence? I cringe at the thought of a creator authorizing a document as innerant, but producing a universe that belies the document.
I will not accept the assertion that ancient people were too ignorant to understand the simple truth about the age of the universe. Other ancient cultures managed to come within an order of magnitude of the age of the earth. They were also closer to expressing quantum particle/wave duality. This doesn't mean they were scientifice, and it doesn't prove they were visited by alien encyclopedia salesmen, but it demonstrates that ancient people were smart enough to deal with large truths.
so why would the "revealed" number differ from the number obtained by research?