I don't believe evolution does contradict either of the Genesis creation accounts, unless we adopt a rigid literalist interpretation. In my view, the texts themselves point towards a more symbolic interpretation. There are several reasons why I favour this interpretation over and against the creationist position:
1. God creates light on the first day (Gn. 1:3) before the sun, moon and stars, which are created on the fourth day to 'indicate festivals, days and years' (Gn. 1:14). This implies, therefore, that the days of creation are different from our understanding of a 'day' as a 24-hour time period. Origen made this very point in 'The Fundamental Doctrines'. After making this point, he asserts, 'I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally'. St. Augustine also observes that each creation day 'is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar'.
2. The tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gn. 2:9) do not sound particularly like biological realities. Moreover, the tree of life is used symbolically in Revelation 22:2, which points towards a more poetic symbolic interpretation of the Genesis account.
3. Seven days, in Hebraic numerology, was understood as symbolic for perfection.
4. The first creation account uses poetic refrain throughout:
'God said...' 'Evening came and morning came...' 'God saw that it was good'
It is interesting to note that the early Church didn't always interprete these creation days literally. St. Justin Martyr and St. Irenaeus, for example, quote Psalm 90:4 which indicates that a day, to us, is like a thousand years to God - a clear rejection of a literalist 24-hour interpretation.
This bible, in my view, should not be interpreted as a scientific textbook. It instructs us how to get to heaven, not how to analyse the heavens. As St. Augustine states:
'It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that the non-Christian should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are.'
