Sorry but I don’t think there’s anything “evolutionary” about believing in an old Earth or old universe, and I don’t think old-Earth creationism conflicts with the story of Genesis in any way. There is no reason to be absolutely, categorically sure that those days were literal days or that they were consecutive. Nothing about the Creation of the universe or of the Earth or of life is diminished by holding to an ancient universe or ancient Earth.
I don’t see it as “compromising” or “bending” or anything of the sort. Just because two separate theories, evolution and old-Earth creationism, call for an ancient universe and old earth, doesn’t necessarily mean that they have anything to do with each other. And it also doesn’t mean that old-Earth creationists believe that *people* have been around for eons.
So tell me, what then do you base your “old-Earth creationism” on?
Perhaps not about Creation but certainly about the need for Christ's redemptive sacrifice on the cross.
Roman's 5 says that through one man, Adam, sin and therefore death came into the world.
12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
Emphasis mine. The point is, without the connection between Adam's sin and the initiation of death, there is no consequence for sin if death was already happening. If there is no consequence for sin, there is no need for payment for sin and therefore no need for a savior.
I do not know much about day-age or old-earth theories, nor even about evolution. I just know that if these theories have death introduced prior to Adam, they are in danger of precluding Christ and His message of redemption.