No, such Bible-based estimates are far older. I found a review that seems comprehensive, albeit reaching an incomprehensible (to me, anyway) conclusion.[0]
To clarify, the modern young Earth creationism that formed as an alternative to scientific consensus. We've had strong evidence that the Earth is very, very old for hundreds of years, which was the scientific and religiously backed conclusion in the early 1800s. At the time this article was written, it would have been well understood and accepted, with no religiously driven explanation counter to scientific evidence. Any explanation put forth for an old or young Earth prior to scientific evidence for it is just blind guessing by philosophers.
> We've had strong evidence that the Earth is very, very old for hundreds of years, which was the scientific and religiously backed conclusion in the early 1800s.
Sure, among experts. But what about popular opinion? And did the Scopes trial (1925) mark a resurgence in creationism?
Not particularly, in my opinion. Look at any group derided, not by the scientific community, but by the laymen who accept scientific consensus; Antivaxers, climate change deniers, YECs. They raise one or two, often valid, objections to the current state of affairs and rather than getting a reasonable, coherent explanation for why it's the scientific consensus, they're mocked, again, by laymen who really couldn't answer their questions anyway. They questioned the divinity of popular science, and as heretics, deserve to be burned. People are reasonable and logical by default. We form our beliefs from knowledge and experience, and these groups are no exception.
[I did search, but DDG found nada.]