Interacting with The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation, Adam Omelianchuk has an objective summary of the 24-hour view, the day-age view, and the framework view. He opts for the framework view in the end. He writes:
First, [the framework view] does not insist on a strong view of biblical-scientific concord; views like the day-age view go too far in the effort to harmonize all scientific data with the text, as if it were written to be a testable creation hypothesis….Second, the Framework view has a high view of normal providence that makes use of ordinary means and secondary causes to bring about God’s creative work….Third, the Framework view makes sense of the textual chronology of creation events.
While aspects of the framework view are not perfect, I think it is the most promising way to interpret Genesis 1. To be sure, it is a recent proposal that conflicts with the history of tradition (as the twenty-four hour proponents remind us), but changes in how we interpret the Bible in light of scientific knowledge is not unprecedented. With respect to the age of the earth, the church has most certainly encountered another ‘Galileo moment’ in its history of interpretation, and we are warranted in taking a second look at the text to see if we our reading of it is correct. By deploying traditional, ordinary means of biblical interpretation, the proponents of the Framework view emerge as a serious contenders that, at least in the context of this discussion, offer the best of the three options available.
Read the whole thing here.