I once posted a long comment on a similar article by Randy Alcorn entitled: Do you believe God created the universe in six literal (24 hour) days? I certainly do. I really am not concerned with how many (is it 38%) “evangelical Christians are compromising the truth of God’s Word regarding the sex literal (24-hour) days of creation in Genesis by bowing down to scientific opinion (“from the goo, through the zoo, to you” evolution) that accommodates millions of years to the days of Genesis rather than the clear,straightforward , literal meaning of six literal (24-hour) days in Genesis. There is no warrant biblically, scientifically or linguistically for doing so (from the perspective of the ancient Hebrew language). I have posted many long comments why I oppose theistic evolution (accommodating long ages to the literal days of Genesis) as not biblical. Jesus Christ himself accepted the Genesis account of creation (Matthew 19:4), including the supernatural creation of Adam and Eve, as well as the biblical account of Noah’s Flood (which would radically alter everything modern uniformitarian geologists have learned in Geology) as historical fact (Matthew 19:: 4, Matthew 24:37-39). We should not be surprised by this when we remember that, though many leading scientists (i.e. “scriptural geologists”) resisted the “old earth” ideas of James Hutton and Charles Lyell (Uniformitarianism) and defended scripture as both true and scientific, Regrettably, it was Christians, not evolutionary scientists, who first lead the charge against scripture, beginning in the 1800s when theologians (theistic evolutionists) readily adopted the “old earth” ideas, of Lyell (uniformitarianism) instead of Noah’s Flood. The Bible believing scientists of the day were in a difficult position of trying to defend scripture when even theologians (who compromised the literal history of Genesis) were against them. The situation remains even worse today, despite recent scientific discoveries about the universe, atom, the internal structure and incredible complexity of cells, DNA, the natural world, etc. Believing scientists, though understandably still in a minority, are leaving Darwinian Evolution, recognizing that strictly natural processes, operating at random on inorganic chemicals, could never have produced complex living cells. Unfortunately, though they have grown weary of arguing how random mutations (essentially harmful to a living organism) in a highly complex genetic code provide improvements to it (no functional genetic information-increasing changes on which “goo to you” evolution depends). So, what do they do? They re-adopt Creation, but still hold on to the old earth and formulate a local Flood account to fit modern uniformitarian geology. How much better it would (and I believe employ better science) to come all the way back to a biblical worldview (instead of just a halfway or middle position between biblical creation and natural evolution (Theistic evolution).. See other comment below:

One could write a book on why it is imperative that Bible-believing Christians not compromise the historical truth of Genesis 1 ( i.e. Day-Age theory, Gap theory, Framework Hypothesis theory) by adding or accommodating evolution to the Genesis account. First, theistic evolution, which is just evolutionary development with God added on, is diametrically opposed to supernatural, ex nihilo (out of nothing), , fiat, (divinely spoken Word\) creation, which even Darwin, who was also a divinity student, rejected: In a letter he wrote to Charles Lyell in 1861, he stated: “The view that each variation has been providentially arranged seems to me to make Natural Selection entirely superfluous, and indeed takes the whole case of the new species out of the range of science” . Not only was theistic evolution rejected by Darwin, but also was never seriously considered by the other founding fathers of evolution. The evolutionary claim of an old earth (4.5 billion years old) denies the veracity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis regarding the order of creation (contrary to evolution, the Bible says birds were created on Day 5 at the same time as the sea creatures –before dinosaurs and other land animals; the Bible says the work of shaping the earth was finished on Day 3 before the moon was made on the 4th day into earth’s creation, not smashed from the earth in a cataclysmic collision; etc.), the distinctness of created kinds (10 times in Genesis 1), the absence of death and bloodshed before the Fall (see Genesis 3; Romans 5:12), the instantaneous creation of Adam and Eve and all of creation functionally mature (which explains the appearance of age), the “very good” status of the creation at the end of the creation week (Genesis 1:31), the great longevities of the patriarchs, and the global nature of the Flood, as attested by over 200 Flood traditions by peoples all around the world, over 30 scriptural references (indicating universality of Great Flood), and layers of water-deposited sedimentary rocks containing separate and distinct and intact kinds of fossilized plants, birds, animals, etc. (not transitional or intermediate fossil) all over the earth.

Every major doctrine of Christianity stands or falls upon the historical foundation laid in the first 11 chapters of Genesis. Obviously, if death were here eons before Adam sinned (Genesis 3), as evolution requires, then creation had already been spoiled and death is not the penalty for sin, as scripture plainly teaches (Genesis 2:16; Romans 5:12). This, in turn, means that Christ’s death and resurrection were ineffective and meaningless, and the biblical teaching (Romans 8:18-23; Rev. 21) of the final restoration (Paradise Regained) of this fallen world to its original state before the Fall (only much more magnificent and glorious)–no sin, no death. no curse–is sheer nonsense. Dr. James Barr, formerly Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture at Oxford University and renown as one of the world’s leading Old Testament Hebrew scholars , wrote, “So far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world class university who does not believe that that the writer (s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience.” The word “day” (Hebrew yom) associated with a numeral (i.e. “first day” “second day,” “third day” in Genesis 1 (and that used 359 times in the Old Testament outside of Genesis 1 ) always means a literal 24-hour day. 

To make sure that no one missed the obvious meaning of a literal 24-hour day, the writer (s) of Genesis 1 under inspiration of the Holy Spirit further qualifies “first day, ” “second day” etc. with “evening and morning”–“and the evening (that part of the day associated with darkness) and morning (that part of the day associated with light) were the first day” (“second day, “third day” etc.). But many who are easily embarrassed (yes, that includes genuine Christians and theistic evolutionists like Dr. John Lennox, astronomers like Hugh Ross and others) by the opinions of secular scientists concerning the unproven assumptions of radiometric dating (which has been off by hundreds of thousands/millions of years, even on rocks of known age) will claim that Genesis 1 and other creation passages are myths, parables, poetry, dramas, allegories or analogies–the only exceptions to the perspicuity of scripture and cardinal rule that “context defines the meaning of a word”—anything, in order to escape the obvious fact that they are written, and read as, a straightforward historical narrative.
 
Even such astounding scholars as Dr. E. J. Young of Westminister Seminary in Philadelphia, an authority of massive erudition in Hebrew and cognate languages holds that “Genesis is not poetry. There are poetical accounts of creation in the Bible–Psalm 104, and certain chapters in Job, and they differ completely from the first chapter of Genesis. Hebrew poetry had certain characteristics, and they are not found in the first chapter of Genesis.” He further states: “The man who says I believe that Genesis purports to be an historical account, but I don’t believe that account” is a far better interpreter of the Bible than the man who says, “I believe that Genesis is profoundly true, but it is poetry”. The inspired, infallible Word of God trumps the opinion (actually “faith”) of fallible scientists, my friend. Don’t undermine or sell out the firm foundation (Genesis 1-11) on which your Christian faith is based, my friend, for the favor and praise of men. God will reward you in due time for your faithfulness to His inspired, infallible Word. God bless.