Agreed. But that is not to say that I find Farah's beliefs any more credible. The choice is not either/or, either swallow General Evolution hook, line, and sinker, or be a strict literalist.
The Genesis account speaks of the six days of the creation, but the sun and moon hadn't yet been created for the first few days. Since the word "day" is defined by the setting and rising of the sun, we can presume that the account means a period of time, not necessarily 24 hours.
Similarly, the Bible speaks of the sun rising and setting. We still use that language, but we now know that this apparent effect is caused by the spinning of the earth, not the diurnal movement of the sun. That doesn't change the essential truth of the biblical accounts. We know that the sun doesn't actually rise or set, but we still comfortably and reasonably use that language.
My problem with General Evolution is not that it doesn't accord with a literal reading of Genesis, but that it is astronomically improbable--so improbable that evolutionists have tried to "save the appearances" by positing an infinite number of universes. Ours is the one in which all the numbers and constants are right for the rise of life and of man, which would otherwise be so extremely improbable as to be called impossible. After all, in an infinite number of universes, anything can happen. Infinity negates statistical probabilities. But where is the evidence to support this wild theory, other than the fact that it's the only way to account for the wild implausibility of the numbers?
But on the same token, not necessarily indicative of anything other than a twenty-four hour day, especially when taken in context with the language of text.
Why is it so hard to grasp that God established such a length of time from the beginning as a "standard" for purposes of "understanding and communication" with his special creation, and that he also acted, as per Genesis, within this time frame for each of the six days of creation.