Does an old earth looks young?

In Tuesday's New York Times, it is reported that evolutionary geologists are now thinking that the early Earth looked very similar to the Earth today. The article, citing a current article published in Nature, begins with the presupposition that the Earth has existed for 4.5 billion years. It then explains that whereas scientists used to believe the Earth was a hot molten ball for the first 700 million years of its existence, they now think it was placid and watery, similar to today.
There are two reasons for this change in viewpoint. First, evidence from zircons, considered the oldest remaining bits of Earth by evolutionary geologists, indicates that there was a large presence of water near the beginning. Second, it is becoming increasingly apparent to scientists that Darwinian evolution cannot possibly account for the diversity of life we have unless an enormous amount of time occurs under ideal conditions, which would not have existed under the previous viewpoint, but is more reasonable under this viewpoint.
Most telling is this paragraph regarding the changing viewpoint:

“We thought we knew something we didn’t,” said T. Mark Harrison, a professor of geochemistry at the University of California, Los Angeles. In hindsight the evidence was just not there. And new evidence has suggested a new view of the early Earth.

There are essentially two types of science today, experimental science in which experiments can be tested and replicated, and historical science that makes up guesses that fit within the loose parameters that we can generally discover in evidence. The conclusions of historical science, though engaging and even ingenious, are highly speculative. While most scientists today know this tacitly, they generally deny the possibility that the Earth could be young, that macro-evolution could be false, and that the supernatural could occur. This is because their presuppositions reject supernatural causation, and ultimately because they want to reject the work of God. They consider their beliefs to be objective, when in fact they are subjective. Their science is created to defend what they believe while using as much "scientific support" as they can gather. When there is contradictory evidence, they either attempt to incorporate it into their old-earth anti-supernatural worldview or they ignore and deny it. In this case, they incorporated the "new evidence" into their own view.
The Bible teaches that God created the Earth in six literal days about six thousand years ago. If this were true, then it would seem to suggest that we should believe the rest of the Bible. If it were false, then it would suggest that the rest of it is also a fairy tale. Scientists who deny the true creating and sustaining God have great reason to deny this. Scientists who are wicked and deserve God's judgment but will not turn to Christ for gracious salvation have reason to deny this. The science does clearly point to a supernatural creation six thousand years ago. But is this what these scientists want to see?