Just out of curiosity since you mention Genesis, do they favor the creationist view, or was Adam born to his hairy primate Momma after millions of years of evolution, until God breathed in a human soul? At the link, one of the people giving a good review is from biologos. I would of course expect them to mention all the various views like an ST would, but there are subtle ways to favor one or the other. Thanks.
In the course of the notes directly in the text, the notes point out some things that would support 24 hour days (e.g., "Remembering the Sabbath every week contributes to the idea that seven days, not months or years, describe the creation account.") and some that would support longer days. The main emphasis is on the theological points being made, and they assert that "The scientific information as to how this [the creation] came about is not in the text."
They seem to emphasize the historicity of Adam and Eve, but they do not take a stand against evolution.
Richard S. Hess was the editor of Genesis 1-11.
Here is a good high level overview from the intro to Genesis in a section called "Genesis and Science":
The contemporary reader of Genesis should strive to read the text as it was originally intended to be read by the ancient reader — not to presume that one can carry into this ancient writing all the assumptions and questions that we might have today. This requires care and knowledge of the purpose for which Moses wrote the text. We should exercise care to read the Bible in a manner that remains sensitive to the literary clues and nuances that the writer intended. This approach is possible but requires study and the guidance of the Spirit of God.
The question of the age of the earth is not automatically resolved with the use of the seven days in 1:1 — 2:3. In 2:4, Moses uses the same Hebrew word for “day” to summarize all the work of creation: “In the day when God created the heavens and the earth.” Of course, this does not mean that the term “day” cannot refer to a 24-hour day in the seven days of creation. But it may also serve other purposes. For one, the use of days builds up to the final climactic seventh day of Sabbath rest. This forms one of the major theological emphases of the creation account. The Sabbath rest is built into creation and forms the goal of world history from its beginning. Another reason for the seven days may be connected with “the account of” in 2:4. While this term often precedes the genealogical lines, it can also fall in the midst of longer accounts of individuals and their families. This is true in the
case of the last mention of this in Genesis, in the account of Jacob’s family line (37:2). Much of the story has already been told. The same may be true of 2:4. How do the heaven and earth have a “family line”? There are no parents or children, only the beginning of the human race. Using a metaphor in which the sun and moon bring forth the earth would only confuse the reader in a strictly monotheistic world where these created things have no personhood and should not be worshiped. Instead, the author may have used the sequence of days to parallel the sequences of generations in the later family lines. Each day prepares for and gives way to the next day just as each generation prepares for and gives way to the next generation. This emphasizes the logical development of God’s creation
more than it pinpoints the chronological development.
A second area concerns the expression “according to its/their kind(s).” This describes the plants (1:11 – 12), the fish of the sea (1:21), the land creatures (1:24 – 25), and all these as well as the birds (7:14). It is sometimes taken to mean that the text must describe exact reproduction and cannot allow for the gradual development of various forms of species. However, in Ezek 47:10 this same phrase refers to fish “of many kinds.” If that is the case in Genesis, then it does not emphasize limitation of each life form to it specific species but emphasizes the diversity of each general life form: fish of many kinds, land creatures of many kinds, etc.
The role of Adam and Eve as the first human couple appears in chs. 2 – 4. While some may argue that these figures represent a symbolic or metaphoric story that has no relation to the early history of humanity, they must address the explicit presentation of the Hebrew text. The syntax of the text resembles that of later books such as 2 Kings, Ezra, and Nehemiah. All readers understand that the authors of these books intended readers to accept them as history. The same should be true of a text such as ch. 3. Indeed, this becomes the witness of the memories of Genesis in the later biblical text (see Introduction: Genesis and History; Genesis and the New Testament).