Since the "How we got here" questions lead to the "What are we to do here?" questions, as personified with the development of the eugenics movement, perhaps there is a different view of the development of the universe than the literal "six 24hr days" scheme that some Creationists set forth. It has become a "straw man" that those who oppose any form of a creative hand in the development of the cosmos itself, our planet, living things on it, and finally ourselves as cognitive, rational, and moral beings and is used to supposedly invalidate any "Creation" model... .

But, is there any other explanation that nicely ties together the science we now have, and Biblical cosmology, since so much flows from what we call our as our first principle? In short, either there is, or is not an intelligence that created all things. And, did this intelligence communicate to us true facts (not some mere assertions) about all this, and what we are to do here, especially as to how we treat fellow humans in regards to eugenics? If we are just biological machines, then all is permitted, as history so tragically proved in the last century. If we have a divine purpose, then what we do to one another is quite important.

Surprisingly, the idea of science/creation disconnect would have bewildered leading academics in the past.

James Dana, (1813-1895) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dwight_Dana Silliman Prof. of Geology and Mineralogy at Yale, one of the leading academics sets forth a view that may well re-define this argument that could shock people. In his textbook "Manual of Geology" (published many times ca. 1863, and runs about 800 pages) contains a section on Cosmology. It should be noted that Princeton's Arnold Guyot, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Henry_Guyot Blair Prof. of Geology and Physical Geography also discoursed on the same topic, published as "Creation: Or The Biblical Cosmology In The Light Of Modern Science" and Dr. Dana endorsed Guyot's work.

Internet Archive has these on file, may be worthwhile to download the PDF's, for perusal.
Here below is an excerpt from Dana:

"Cosmogony of the Bible.—There is one ancient document on cosmogony—that of the opening page of the Bible—which is not only admired for its sublimity, but is very generally believed to be of divine origin, and which, therefore, demands at least a brief consideration in this place.

In the first place, it may be observed that this document, if true, is of divine origin. For no human mind was witness of the events; and no such mind in the early age of the world, unless gifted with superhuman intelligence, could have contrived such a scheme;— would have placed the creation of the sun, the source of light to the earth, so long after the creation of light, even on the fourth day, and, what is equally singular, between the creation of plants and that of animals, when so important to both; and none could have reached to the depths of philosophy exhibited in the whole plan.

Again, If divine, the account must bear marks of human imperfection, since it was communicated through man. Ideas suggested to a human mind by the Deity would take shape in that mind according to its range of knowledge, modes of thought, and use of language, unless it were at the same time supernaturally gifted with the profound knowledge and wisdom adequate to their conception; and even then they could not be intelligibly expressed, for want of words to represent them.

The central thought of each step in the Scripture cosmogony— for example. Light,—the dividing of the fluid earth from the fluid around it, individualizing the earth,—the arrangement of its land and water,—vegetation,—and so on—is brought out in the simple and natural style of a sublime intellect, wise for its times, but unversed in the depths of science which the future was to reveal. The idea of vegetation to such a one would be vegetation as he knew it; and so it is deseribed. The idea of dividing the earth from the fluid around it would take the form of a dividing from the fluid above, in the imperfect conceptions of a mind unacquainted with the earth's sphericity and the true nature of the firmament,—especially as the event was beyond the reach of all ordinary thought.

Objections are often made to the word "day,"—as if its use limited the time of each of the six periods to a day of twenty-four hours. But in the course of the document this word "day" has various significations, and, among them, all that are common to it in ordinary language. These are—(1) The light,—"God called the light day," v. 5; (2) the "evening and the morning" before the appearance of the sun: (3) the "evening and the morning" after the appearance of the sun; (4) the hours of light in the twenty-four hours (as well as the whole twenty-four hours), in verso 11; and (5) in the following chapter, at the commencement of another reoord of ereation, the whole period of ereation is called "a day." The proper meaning of "evening and morning," in a history of creation, is beginning and completion; and, in this sense, darkness before light is but a common metaphor.

A Deity working in creation like a day-laborer by earth-days of twenty-four hours, resting at night, is a belittling conception, and one probably never in the mind of the saered penman. In the plan of an infinite God, centuries are required for the maturing of some of the plants with which the earth is adorned.

The order of events in the Scripture cosmogony corresponds essentially with that which has been given. There was first a void and formless earth: this was literally true of the "heavens and the earth," if they were in the condition of a gaseous fluid. The succession is as follows:—

(1.) Light.

(2.) The dividing of the waters below from the waters above the earth (the word translated waters may mean fluid).

(3.) The dividing of the land and water on the earth.

(4.) Vegetation; which Moses, appreciating the philosophical characteristic of the new creation distinguishing it from previous inorganic substances, defines as that "which has seed in itself."

(5.) The sun, moon, and stars.

(6.) The lower animals, those that swarm in the waters, and the creeping and flying species of the land.

(7.) Beasts of prey ("creeping" here meaning "prowling").
(8.) Man.

In this succession, we observe not merely an order of events, like that deduced from science; there is a system in the arrangement, and a far-reaching prophecy, to which philosophy could not have attained, however instructed.

The account recognizes in ereation two great eras of three days each,—an Inorganic and an Organic.

Each of these eras opens with the appearance of light: the first, light cosmical; the second, light from the sun for the special uses of the earth.

Each era ends in a " day" of two great works,—the two shown to be distinct by being severally pronounced "good." On the third "day," that closing the Inorganic era, there was first the dividing of the land from the waters, and afterwards the creation of vegetation, or the institution of a kingdom of life,—a work widely diverse from all preceding it in the era. So on the sixth "day," terminating the Organic era, there was first the creation of Mammals, and then a second far greater work, totally new in its grandest element, the creation of Man."

Hope this is some help.
From my viewpoint, the concept of "Man being the grandest element" has immense intellectual import in our modern world which, as Chesterton wrestled with, seems to wallow in a swamp of alternative ideologies that in the end...have no place or identity for you , me and the rest of our 7,012,926 327+ fellow earth-bound residents... .