I dunno, Dean. I'm not sure I'd try to defend a literal reading of Genesis 1.

I guess that what I'd say is that there are things about the order of creation as spelled out there that I find interesting -- not the least of which you've touched on -- that if there is any literal meaning to be taken from the order of things, that God created light before he created the sun (and stars), it sure would be interesting to know what that light was supposed to have been. It sure seems all the heck out of order -- especially if one needs a few million years between the days.

But I have to say that, though I don't tend to believe in a literal six day creation, I wouldn't be surprised if some day I find out that it was so -- and how it occurred.

My sense of logic is not at all comforted by giving a creator millions of years to accomplish the universe. On the one hand, it may have taken that long -- but on the other hand, I don't find creation/the universe any more possible a task just because more time is allowed. Improbable is improbable. Time doesn't help. Ask me to build a computer from scratch (no manuals, no materials) and I couldn't do it. Give me a million years and I still couldn't do it. Time wouldn't help.

If the universe occurred over eons of time because it occurred over eons of time, then fine. But the notion that the time made it more possible is of little logical comfort -- for cration or for evolution.