Except that I think you are missing something very simple, as are most who read this “plainly straightforward account” from a “creationist” perspective. One simple observation blows the creationist position out of the water and it doesn’t depend on reading the text in any way other than its plain sense.

That observation is this:

Grammatically and syntactically, Genesis 1.1 stands alone. Genesis 1.2 starts a new paragraph.

Think about the implications of this. If Gen 1.1 is an independent sentence, with a new subject beginning in verse 2…

1. Gen 1.1 may describe the creation of the universe from nothing before the six days.
2. If so, then the “six days” are about something else, not the creation of the universe.
3. Or, Gen. 1.1 may be a “title” or summary statement for the rest of the chapter.
3. If so, then the “creation” account that begins in v. 2 starts with the “earth” (or land) already in existence. Nowhere do we have a description of God creating it, or water, or wind.

Either way, the “six days” are about something other than the “creation” of the universe.

That is a plain straightforward reading of the first two verses of Genesis 1.

As an old-earth creationist, I believe in a real creation by God, in a real Adam, in a real fall into sin, in real consequences for that sin, and in Jesus Christ as the only solution for that sin. Looking at the text of Genesis (as well as Romans 5 and 8 and other places) I do not see anywhere where it says that human sin caused animal death (this is something young-earth creationists read into the text). Like many prominent conservative Christian leaders over the years—such as Charles Spurgeon, B.B. Warfield, Francis Schaeffer, C.S. Lewis, and J. Gresham Machen—I don’t think the text requires a young earth.

If man did not fall and is not sin cursed there was no spiritual purpose for Jesus to die on the cross. So that has no significance at all.

If you can’t believe in what is written in Genesis there is very little you can believe when it comes to scripture, very little is relevant, or has any real meaning and most of all salvation wasn’t necessary.

Why couldn’t God create the earth in the manner in which it’s written in the bible? Why wouldn’t he? Is it necessary to believe he didn’t?

If we can’t believe that God created the earth instantly because it’s “too supernatural” then why should we believe the divinity of Jesus or any of the miracles of the bible, because what makes those supernatural and not the creation story in Genesis.

Can we only believe in supernatural events when there is no possible natural explanation? If God appeared in front of you and made a chicken by pouring out sand on the ground is it impossible to believe that chickens come from fertilized eggs?

The other aspect is the process of differentiation that is thought to have occurred since the origin of the first living organism. Since every differentiation event occurred in the past none of them are now available for investigation using an appropriate, formalised, scientific method. All we can do is investigate remnant artifacts, such as fossils, compare them with each other and make more or less informed guesses regarding what their relationships to each other might be. I will call this aspect “Historical Evolution”.

The only real difference between “Creation Science” and “Historical Evolution” (theistic or otherwise) is in their respective presuppositions.

The former assumes;
a) that God exists,
b) that in the words of Scripture God has revealed himself through what he has done,
c) that God, having made us, understands how we think and reason, and
d) that God, being both good and merciful, would not provide a story of our origins that requires us to have tertiary-level training in Biblical literary criticism and several different branches of philosophy in order to correctly understand the meaning of the account that he gave us of our origin even if it is in the form of poetic prose. (“Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” Mt 19:14 RSV)

The latter assumes;
a) that God either does not exist (or, if he does, would leave no trace of his working in his work) and therefore,
b) random, spontaneous events must be sufficient to explain how every living thing could have descended from a single, original, spontaneously formed, living thing (assuming it’s possible for a living thing to be formed randomly and spontaneously).

Neither “Creation Science” nor “Historical Evolution” are scientific in the sense of being the kind of work that can, “cure disease, solve hunger, improve national security, and otherwise … improve the quality of human life.” (AAAS statement: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2008/media/0418aaas_statement.pdf)

None of us would be bothered by the whole science vs. religion argument if we could be bothered with thinking hard about what we think science really is and why we think it’s such a valuable enterprise. I like having a computer, a digital TV, non-stick cookware, a mobile phone, antibiotics, MRI scans, movies on DVD, etc., etc., etc. I can do without people pushing their naturalistic religion/philosophy of history on me and telling me I should believe it because, according to them, naturalism explains everything.

I don’t want “Creation Science” in school science classrooms. I want “Historical Evolution” out of them precisely because it has no more to do with science than did Lysenkoism.

1. John Sailhamer (Expositors Bible Commentary)
2. John Walton (IVP Application Commentary)
3. Bruce Waltke

In Waltke’s OT Theology he continues to deal with the text in a helpful way also. Sailhamer’s Genesis Unbound elaborates his views. I am looking forward to reading Walton’s new book as well.