In point of fact they do not, and I will explain why.
It is a common literary device used by historians of all times to lay out a narrative in a framework and then to revisit key points of that framework later.
For example, a biography of President Lincoln might lay out a general sketch of his life, mentioning his debates with Douglass in passing, and then revisit those debates in a later chapter in great detail.
Likewise, in the Genesis narrative a sketch of the creation is proffered from nothingness to the first Sabbath.
Then the narrative becomes more specific and describes the creation of man and woman in more explicit detail.
Most books are written in this way, in fact - a general overview first and then focus on what the author considers important details later.This discussion has about as much meaning as an argument between a Southern Baptist and a Catholic on how to treat Mary, mother of Jesus.
What makes the discussion meaningful is when both parties acknowledge the facts at hand and then come to the conclusion that they interpret the facts differently.
The fact at hand here is that the Genesis narrative is internally consistent as a narrative. It does not contradict itself.
Whether one believes the Genesis narrative to be accurate is a nother matter.
One can argue against the historicity of Genesis in a variety of ways without making the embarrassing mistake of projecting inconsistencies onto the narrative which are not there.
What this discussion does prove is that creationism does not belong in a classroom of any kind, because it is faith, not science.
Not really.
What it points out is that science class should focus on hard science like the mechanics of genetics and physical morphology and not present unproven hypotheses as fact.
Yes, they do.
The fact at hand here is that the Genesis narrative is internally consistent as a narrative. It does not contradict itself.
Genesis does contradict itself in specific sequences of actions. The second story is not as obvious in the sequence, as it does not use "day one", "day two", etc. Yet it is still explicit in sequence when it says that certian things had not yet happend because other things had not yet occured.
I've covered explicit verse by verse descriptions in these threads before. Sorry you missed it.
To maintain that the Bible is not inconsistent, it is necessary to interpret Genesis creation stories to have the very general meaning that "God did it".
There are several places in the old books of the Bible where two different versions of the same story show up. The likely explanation is a split between the tribes if Israel where early translations of the Bible diverged, and were later merged into single collection.
The bottom line is that we disagree on major interpretations of the few verses in Genesis pertaining to the Creation. How can you possibly be so certian of any particular interpretation that you wish to insist on teaching your theory in a public school? That's a place for science, not religious dogma that you and I can't agree on.