Justin Taylor has directed us to an article that might be helpful in shaping our perspective on the Creation debates. In a day when some suggest that any divergence from the "Genesis 1-2 = 7 days" interpretation is a fundamental compromise that rejects the clear, plain reading of the text, it might be instructive to consider what people who were committed to the complete reliability and authority of Scripture believed—before we felt compelled to read the text as an explicit refutation of Darwinism. Taylor points us to an article that raises the provocative issue of what orthodox believers prior to the rise of Darwinism and modernism understood to be clear, or perhaps not so clear.
To be sure, some interpretations of Genesis 1-2 are incompatible with ex nihilo creation, Divine sovereignty, the reliability and authority of Scripture, and Adamic headship—not to mention other biblical texts. Some of these interpretations have direct implications for our understanding of the gospel, and not in a good way. But these are some interpretations. Which particular interpretation is correct is a question that, as Taylor notes, "must be settled by careful exegesis" (not by church history).
Sometimes, the Bible doesn't say everything we wish it said, even if our wishes are motivated by our desires to defend it. What's more, the Bible is not our tool to refute the views we don't like, even if they're really harmful views. The Bible is God's tool. It's sufficiently clear to accomplish what he intends. But let's be cautious towards the assumption that what seems clear to us is the final authority on what must be clear to everyone. A better awareness of church history may be instructive toward that end.