Mike Milton and Douglas Kelly provide brief essays outlining their belief in the Bible’s account of creation on Milton’s blog.
For those who have some reading time this week-end the post is worth considering.
Milton:
I do not judge the Bible by science, but believe the Bible and then move out from there. Since I believe Jesus is the God-Man, risen from the dead and ascended on high and coming again, and since Jesus believed the Bible without qualification as inerrant and infallible (ie., Luke 24:27), and since the Apostles themselves recognized their own writings as sacred (2 Peter 3:16), I believe the Bible’s account of Creation. In other words, I believe the framers of the Confession got it spot on. God created the world out of nothing. God created the ant and God created the nebulae.
I do not believe in Darwinism. In fact, I have written about Darwin on this site. I do not believe in evolution. While I can see the development of species “according to their kind” as Genesis says, I cannot hold to Darwin’s theories.
Kelly:
We probably need not be overly worried about aggressive atheistic evolutionists, such as Richard Dawkins of Oxford, but one is rather more concerned to see Christian scholars, who claim allegiance to the Scriptures, make peace with a doctrine so opposed to the very foundations of Christianity (and Judaism before it). It would appear that some of them feel that evolution is such a universally proven fact, that to accept Biblical creational teaching would render the Gospel itself incredible in the view of most educated people today. It would ‘paint believers into a corner’, and keep needy souls from receiving the good news at their hands.
Let us look at two good reasons why this is simply not the case: (1) empirical science does not prove evolution, nor finally require it, for its progress to continue, and (2) one cannot split the foundational Scriptural teaching on creation from Gospel redemption, without the danger of losing them both!
mgpcpastor's blog 
Milton says his hermenuetic will not allow him to consider say Dr. Kline’s interpretation and work on this subject. He does not then tell us how that is or what hermenuetic. Is it 6 literal yoms or naturalistic evolution for these men, with no category of adiophora? I still quest for clear, fair, and scholarly words on this subject even if they go against my intuitions, but I don’t find these RTS fellows particularly helpful. Formerly two books of revelation were recognized. Is it biblicism to ignore natural revelation in a bid to refuse to do the work to harmonize the two revelations. Is “two revelations” heretical now, and did they not both come from God? Why are they artificially separated here by “teacher-class” Christians? No activity here, and I wonder if that indicates a readership who themselves already know what they know so to speak and are disengaged/disinterested in this subject…..in a word, partisan.