“Because of the lack of the definite article, the Bible does not indicate that the days were consecutive. Much time could have passed between “day” three and “day” four. Again, this is consistent with scientific observations.”
I think you're attributing more to the lack of a definite article than is justified. I know Biblical Hebrew has no indefinite article except as shown by a lack of the definite before a noun.
To me it appears the context as seen by the writer determines whether the article will be used of not as in Gen. 2:4 where heavens and earth lack the article but plainly it's not “a” heavens and earth as though there several even if that is the literal reading.
Hence translators have “the” not “a” here.
There may be other examples such as when Noah sent out “a” or “the” dove and raven.
Thus most translators will attempt to convey the meaning from the context to the translator and not the absolute literal reading. And so “a” day would not indicate time between the “days” that were not part of those days.
It's possible, and I almost didn't include it. However, I thought of the Cambrian explosion and other short periods of time where large numbers of new species suddenly appeared. I also remembered how bent out of shape the militant atheists were when these discoveries were made.
As with the the Big Bang theory, one of the major concerns of the militant atheists was that the Cambrian explosion fits too closely to the Bible.
However, the militant atheists forgot that they could count on the YECs not to take advantage of the discoveries because they held to a wrong interpretation of scripture.