 I'm an old earth creationist, and I think many times people misunderstand that position. This particular position would argue that Genesis 1 is a historical description of God's creative activity, but that the days of Genesis 1 are not 24 hours, but rather long periods of time. And in the original Hebrew, the word that's translated as day is yom, which can literally mean a period of time. And so you could argue that an old earth perspective, a day-age perspective, is a literal reading of Genesis 1, not figurative or metaphorical. It's a literal reading of Genesis 1. And again, I would look at Genesis 1 as a historical description of God's creative work. It's not telling us everything that God did, but rather highlights. It's selecting certain miracles that God performed and communicating that information to us. So that's how I would understand what Genesis 1 is teaching, and that particular perspective now is compatible with scientific measurements for the antiquity of the earth and the antiquity of the universe at 13.8 billion years and 4.5 billion years with respect to the age of the earth. It also looks to me as if there's been life on the planet for 3.8 billion years as well. So I would see the fossil record as revealing a real history of life on earth, but instead of the fossil record showing an evolutionary history of life, I believe it actually shows a history where God is intervening, orchestrating the history of life to bring glory to himself, but also to prepare the planet for ultimately the arrival of human beings. When you look at the fossil record, instead of seeing gradual evolutionary transformations, you see explosive appearances every time there's biological innovation. In fact, Eugene Kuhn and a scientist at NIH argues that the history of life on earth is a series of biological big bangs, where there are again explosive appearances of new biological capacities at key times in life's history that don't seem to have any intermediate forms. It's just simply going from one level of complexity to another in an explosive manner. That to me looks as if it is a fingerprint for the creator. So an old earth creationist would argue that the age of the earth is indeed old, but would argue that that is compatible with a literal reading of Genesis 1 as history, and this position is also very strongly anti-evolutionary in its viewpoint as well. So it is a creationist position, and actually many of the characteristics of the old earth position are in common with the young earth view in terms of how we understand the origin of humanity, in terms of our criticism of the evolutionary paradigm. The primary difference would be how we understand day in Genesis 1 and whether or not we think the earth is literally young or is in fact old. So there's a lot of agreement between the young earth view and the old earth view, and unfortunately many times people tend to highlight the differences and overlook the fact that there's a lot of similarities these two positions have.