Just to make this interesting...
Prawnik, I read your question about heliocentricity - a good question - and got out my copy of Bercott's Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs (Hendrickson Publishers, 1998)
I don't know whether I'll find anything directly answering that question, but here are some interesting findings.
Article: Days of Creation, p.189
In the day that they did eat, in the same day did they die, and became death's debtors. For it was one day of the creation. It is said, "There was made in the evening, and there was made in the morning, one day." Now in this same day that they did eat, in that day they also died... From this it is clear that the Lord suffered death, in obedience to His Father, upon that same day on which Adam died while he disobeyed God. Irenaeus 1.551 (ANF)
No man can give a sufficient explanation of this six days' work, nor can he describe all of its parts. He could not do this even if he had ten thousand tongues. Theophilus ANF 2.99.
Victorinus and Methodius affirm that God made the world in six days, but since the quotes are lifted from their contexts, it is not evident what they mean by "days."
From the article, "Evolution" pp. 264-267
Origen - Celsus harbors a secret desire to discredit the Mosaic account of the Creation. It teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but, in fact, is very much under that.
Here's evidence that materialistic evolutionary theory did not originate with Darwin:
Dionysius of Alexandria: Who can bear to hear it said that this mighty habitation, which is composed of heaven and earth and is called the "cosmos,"... was established in all its order and beauty by those atoms that hold their course - devoid of order and beauty? Or, that this same state of disorder has grown into this true cosmos of order?
And their are several other entries that address the question of materialistic evolution.
Lactantius: Some unbelievers say that the first men spent a nomadic life among th woods and plains. Men were not united by any mutual bond of speech and justice. They had leaves and grass for their beds, and they used caves and grottos for their dwellings. Furthermore, they were prey to the beasts and stronger animals. ... O minds unworthy of men, which produced these foolish trifles! ...
Now, as to the argument that we must rely on the Fathers. In the article "Cosmetics," the ante-Nicene Fathers speak as one voice in condemning the habit of wearing makeup and fine jewelry. I'm not kidding, here is what they say:
Clement of Alexandria - What should be said about the love of gems, exquisite working of gold, ... of artificial hair and wreathed curls? Furthermore, what should be said about staining the eyes, plucking out the hairs, painting with rouge and white lead, dyeing of the hair, and the wicked arts that are employed in such deceptions?
Tertullian - For those women sin against God when they rub their skin with ointments, stain their cheeks with rouge, and make their eyes prominent with antimony.
Hyppolytus - "Now Suzannah was a very delicate woman." This does not mean that she had flashy adornments on herself or eyes painted with various colors - as Jezebel had. Rather, it means she had the adornment of faith, chastity, and sanctity.
Novatian - She is not a modest woman who strives to stir up the fancy of another - even though her physical chastity is preserved. Away with those who do not really adorn their beauty, but prostitute it instead.
Commodianus - Moreover, with evil purpose you pout on false cosmetics. ... But these things are not necessary for the modest woman.
Cyprian - All these things the sinning and apostate angels put forth by their arts, when, lowered to the contagions of earth, they forsook their heavenly vigor. They also taught women to paint the eyes with blackness drawn around them in a circle and to stain the cheeks with a deceitful red.
There is not one varying opinion recorded on this matter, or on the matter of:
Article: "Veil" pp. 666 (oh, dear!) - 667
Clement of Alexandria - It has also been commanded that the head should be veiled and the face covered. For it is a wicked thing for beauty to be a snare to men.
For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled.
"Because of the angels." By the "angels" he means righteous and virtuous men. Let her be veiled, then, so that she may not lead them to stumble into fornication. For the real angels in heaven see her, even though she is veiled.
Tertullian - That matter must now be dealt with that is inconsistently observed throughout the churches. [Whether or not virgins should be veiled] ... Are virgins incapable of of excelling in beauty and finding lovers? ... Why do you uncover before God what you cover before men? Will you be more modest in the village than in the church?
Point is that the Church does not consistently hold us to either one of these practices today, even though the earliest Fathers adress the former, and the Scriptures themselves, as well as these two Fathers, address the latter. Yes, I know that Tertullian taught some false things, but Bercott stated that he was careful to leave them out or note them where he felt they must be included for historicity's sake.
The Church also does not seem to prescribe or dictate one particular view of creation, other than that we must affirm that it is God who has created it all. My priest is very, very well-educated in the Orthodox Faith, in Holy Tradition, and the fact that he does not seem to see a definite consensus among the Fathers on the matter of interpreting Genesis, then I shall remain skeptical until I have had the opportunity to examine it for myself. Frankly, I have so much to do simply to battle my sinfulness, that this is just not on my front burner.
What Holy Tradition requires us to believe about interpreting these things is, imho, simply beyond the scope of what we can acheive in a forum discussion.
*******
Regarding the objection that speciation would contradict the Genesis claim that living things reproduce "after their own kind" - Speciation is the product of many steps of variational changes over multiple generations. Evolutionary theory does not nor has it ever claimed that cats give birth to chickens, or any such thing. Speciation does not violate reproduction after kind, and it has been observed in laboratory settings. Just some fyi in case you're arguing with materialists, so you don't come off looking silly.
Sorry, I'm full of analogies this morning so you get at least one. 
