May I suggest reading this book; Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique
Moreland, J. P., et al.. It is very well done, scholarly and available at Amazon.

all acts of God in our world have a certain implausibility. so what.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you asking whether the question "Is X plausible?" has any relevance to the question "Do I have a good reason to believe X?"

I see. Thanks for clarifying.

God is all knowing. therefore, no problem.

Even if that is true, it's not clear to me how that resolves the problem that I referred to: how would anyone have known what was going on near the Holy of Holies at the moment when Jesus gave up his spirit? Respectfully, I'm now imagining Dixie Cup telephone communication between the temple and Calvary?

implausible? all acts of God in our world have a certain implausibility. so what.

the veil was torn was most likely torn by God. therefore there is no problem.

please, do not give up on God.

I never gave up on him. I gave up on people who say they know something about him.

He is faithful and He will show you the truth of Christ.

You say so.

Catholic evolutionists suggest that they are not doing a disservice to the text of the Holy Scriptures (specifically Genesis), and that the original authors did not intend the early chapters of Genesis to be taken literally. These same Catholic evolutionists highly value the opinions of the experts. Barr's quote shows that it is entirely inconsistent to hold to the above view. The reason this is significant is because one of the most important principles of Scriptural exegesis/hermeneutics is interpreting the original intent of the author. To suggest that one is holding to the original intent of the author flies in the face of expert opinion. And thus one is forced to either reject expert opinion, reject Genesis (and the whole Catholic faith) as myth, or become a Catholic creationist. I assert that the last option is the most reasonable.

The modern historical consensus is wrong regarding 'two creation accounts.... that are not consistent with one another." This is a modernist thought that is used by many to attempt to discredit the veracity of Genesis. The two accounts are absolutely reconcilable. The following link explains further (I am not endorsing the entire website, merely the following page):
http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=1131

I am not sure I understand your point about James Barr's position. As I understand him, he is saying the consensus is that the authors of Genesis believed themselves to be giving an historical account. However, Barr himself certainly doesn't believe Genesis to be an historical account, and I am sure the majority of biblical scholars would agree with him.

And of course the modern historical consensus is that there are two creation accounts in Genesis, stitched together but with the seams still showing, that are not consistent with one another. So there are separate questions about what the original authors thought and what the compilers and editors thought.