Apart from the evidence in creation, which is overwhelming, it appears clear to me on the basis of the text independently that the days spoken of in Genesis 1 and 2 are more than 24 hours.
This is the only part of your statement that I would take exception with.
Apart from the
evidence in creation, which is overwhelming,..
This is a very arbitrary statement. much if not most of this is not observable evidence. And evidence always requires a philosophical position to interpret from. Let's please be honest here. No one has exclusive rights to evidence. We all have the same evidence. It is not evidence, but interpretations that are at issue.
What we really need to say is "evidence interpreted under the secular worldview." Because unless you are a physicist, astronomer, etc. you are going to have to rely on interpretations of evidence, and not raw data itself.
One issue I have with fellow YECers is when they espouse YEC as orthodoxy. And this may get back to the original point in the thread. Personally, I have never been able to satisfy my mind with 24 days, simply because of how we measure a 24 hour day. And since creation days were passing before a sun existed it creates quite a puzzle. But I also know that this is a problem with my mind and the impossibility of observation, and not evidence per se.
I guess one of the biggest issues I have with
some OEC positions is that when it comes down to matters of biblical authority versus secular interpretations of evidence, the latter often seems to win out. It often appears that the OEC view is trying to reconcile itself to the secular worldview. I know that sounds narrow minded. There is nothing wrong with considering the evidence. But this is not the problem I have. As we've seen demonstrated several times on this board recently. People saying, well if this argument fails, then I will adopt deism, or other silly notions like this. It is the apparent bowing to secular positions that concern me. This is happening in the theater of evolution. We know that it is a popular worldview to say that evolution is a fact. We know based on logic, reason and the nature of science that this is NOT an accurate or even a scientific statement. Yet, many in the faith community have bowed to this position. That is a fact. And thus they have compromised their faith. That now means that in their mind, the bible must yield to this worldview, or be rejected in one form or the other. Rejected as being a literal truth. (symbolic, etc.)Such as Adam being a literal human. Or rejected in total.
I'll give you an example out of history,in how authority is being compromised. I remember a thread where an apparent contradiction was mentioned between a date that Luke had used, versus a date that Josephus used. The natural inclination was to try and reconcile Luke's date to Josephus'. The secular world who mocks biblical infallibility was ironically considering Josephus, infallible. At least in regards to this date. Because this was being used as an example the bible was in error, and to PROVE something. This, despite the multitude of examples in Luke's writings that were verified. And yet until I mentioned it, no one even mentioned the idea of the possibility that Josephus had made an error. Instead believers were introducing all kinds of bizarre explanations. This is a telling sign to me that people might actually not have faith in what that claim to be certain and sure of.
Personally, I believe that there are OECers who do espouse a 'literal' interpretation. I know, because there are many here. Because of the points of contention I haven't reconciled as YECer, I am interested to hear and examine OEC positions. Whether it be gap theory, day-age, etc. To date, none have convinced me that they are a proper position to adopt in whole. Interesting that my main contention with most of these positions is exactly what Bart said when he mentioned bad theology and bad science.
There is certainly guilt on both sides. YECers have the history of anti-intellectualism, and several positions that were simply ridiculous. And although some of that still lingers, there is a great deal of scholarship today. Much of which is not considered here. Many of the recent discussions have demonstrated that to be the case. That people have rejected YEC, without even having a clear handle on many of the interpretations of the evidence, and how we answer many of the objections. Sad, because this is the same type of thinking that contributes to the very thing August started this thread over.