The article "http://creation.com/naming-the-animals-all-in-a-day-s-work-for-adam"

is of course non-science.

QUOTE
Today we divide the animals into those we call tame (mostly herbivores), and those we call wild (both herbivores and carnivores), but this distinction did not apply before Adam sinned.

1:31, 'And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good.' From these we conclude that animals did not kill each other for food pre-Fall, and they had no reason to fear man.

This means that we can regard them all as being tame at the time Adam named them. It also means that they would not have eaten each other, while taking part in any naming procession!

The animals which Adam named are specifically described in Genesis 2:20. They were the 'cattle', 'the fowl of the air' (birds), and 'every beast of the field'. This classification has no correlation with today's arbitrary system of man-made taxonomy (amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, insects), but is a more natural system based on the relation of the animals to man's interests.

If we compare this naming list with the creation list in Genesis 1:20–25—birds and sea creatures (created on Day Five), beasts of the earth, cattle, creeping things—we see there are several very significant differences.2 Adam was not required to name any of the sea creatures, or any of the creeping things. And as the beasts of the field were not specifically mentioned in the creation list, we can regard them as being a subdivision of the beasts of the earth. That is, Adam was required to name only some of the total land animal population of his own day.

There is no suggestion that the naming was meant to be comprehensive. From this it follows that Adam's task was not to provide a scientific taxonomy, but a set of general names of a selection of the animals, for the benefit of average human beings who would come after him.
UNQUOTE

This is typical of the tortuous squirming of the 'Law of Fives' philosophy followers...

"From these we conclude that animals did not kill each other for food pre-Fall ... we can regard them all as being tame at the time Adam named them. It also means that they would not have eaten each other"

So all the carnivores were vegetarians! Or they magically did not need food before Man Sinned! Nonsensical gibberish!

QUOTE
a more natural system based on the relation of the animals to man's interests
UNQUOTE

The Bible commands man to go forth and trash the Earth, without needing to study ecology, or take care of it, as everything is just for Man's benefit! And when it runs out, the Big Magic Shy Fairy will magically take away his mindless slaves to some far away Magic Place.

Shy? that is a laugh ... er... Sky!

And this paragraph reveals the real motivations of Creationists
QUOTE
Why?

Adam had been given dominion over the animals (Genesis 1:28), and God now provided him with the opportunity to exercise this responsibility in a way which established his authority and supremacy—in ancient times, it was an act of authority to impose names (cf. Daniel 1:7) and an act of submission to receive them.

This exercise also shows that Adam was not an ape-man, and indeed it was intended by God to show that he had no ape-like siblings among which to find fellowship or a mate (cf. Genesis 2:20b: 'for Adam there was not found an help meet [i.e. helper suitable] for him').

Contrary to the wishful thinking of evolutionists, the first man was not some stooped, dimwitted, grunting hominid, separated from his ape-like ancestors by a genetic mutation or two. The Bible portrays Adam as being essentially different from the animal world, because he had been created 'in the image of God' (Genesis 1:27).

This term refers primarily to man's God-consciousness—his capacity for worshipping and loving God, his ability to understand and choose between right and wrong, and his capacity for holiness.10

A secondary meaning includes such things as man's mental powers, reason, and capacity for articulate, grammatical, symbolic speech. In Adam, before sin, these capacities may have dwarfed anything we know today.

God in His omniscience would have foreknown the rise of humanistic naturalism in the twentieth century. This episode, way back in the Garden of Eden, highlights for those who have an eye to see it, the false and unbiblical nature of the evolutionary theory of human origins!
UNQUOTE

"In Adam, before sin, these capacities may have dwarfed anything we know today."

The typical Golden Times of Mythology!

QUOTE
Was Adam equal to the task?

We learn language by association, but Adam, from the moment he was created, had language. Therefore he (and then Eve) must have already had built in 'programs' in their memory banks, so that when God said, 'Don't …' (Genesis 2:17), they immediately knew exactly what this meant. It seems that they must also have known what it would mean to die, even though they had never seen anything dead.

It is therefore reasonable for us to conclude that, at the 'naming parade', Adam could speak a precise language, using one or two words in place of a long description, just as our one word 'elephant' refers to 'a large, big-eared, trunk-nosed, tusked quadruped'.

It also means that he did not need to ponder each decision. His naming of each different kind of animal could therefore have been both quick and appropriate, and also without confusion, for he would have had the capacity to recall the names he already had allocated with a pre-Fall memory that was crystal clear and voluminous.
UNQUOTE

More 'Law of Fives' rationalizing - including just making more things up out of nothing to explain away problems, caused by making up previous things! 'Leaps of Faith' - with no need to 'prove/document' anything said! No deduction, no induction, but 'abduction' - ie Fantasy!

"separated from his ape-like ancestors by a genetic mutation or two"

Ah - so the Creationists can now insist they are smarter than The
Other People ! :-)

Poetry, perhaps Art, but NOT a 'branch of Science'!