0154 Ross’s aesthetic judgment goes like this.
An aesthetic intellect, embracing both metaphysics and physics (relation, thirdness), brings artistic concordism as an empirio-schematic judgment (what ought to be, secondness) into relation with a dyad, the noumenon of Genesis One and our evolutionary history [cannot be fully objectified by] the phenomena of significant correspondences (what is,firstness).
0155 What is that what is again?
Here is a dyad that follows the classical Positivist’s judgment’s what is of a noumenon [cannot be objectified as] its phenomena.

0156 Recall, the first abstraction in natural philosophy, Aristotle’s hylomorphe of matter [substance] form, associates to a noumenon, rather than its phenomena. This is how the positivist intellect excludes metaphysics. All the metaphysics of natural inquiry goes into the noumenon. Phenomena are only the observable and measurable facets of the thing itself.
The languages of modern science (relation, thirdness) bring mathematical and mechanical models (what ought to be,secondness) into relation with observations and measurements of phenomena (what is, firstness).
Ross’s conjunction of the Creation Story with the Earth’s evolutionary history is packed with philosophical and theological implications.
These belong to the noumenon.
To me, the most notable implication is that this conjunction looks a lot like a mimic of the pre-scholastic dyad, grace [inflows] nature.
0157 Another implication of the noumenon?
What is of Ross’s aesthetic judgment ties together the content-level actualities of the interscopes for the party of exalting grace3c and the party for exalting nature3c. The noumenon appears in the following figure as the box composed of dashed red-lines.

0158 Yes, Ross’s aesthetic judgment is clearly crossing red lines.
Or, should I say, “boxing red lines”.
At least, they are dashed.
The question to be asked is, “Is there a label for the single actuality composed of the actualities of these two content-level nested forms?”
0159 Chapter fifteen offers one suggestion from theologians who exalt grace3c by conceding that they should qualify revelation1a on the basis that the early stories of Genesis2a must be associated with the cultural milieu of the civilizations of the ancient Near East3a.
What is that suggestion?
There can be no single actuality because the scientific concept of the evolutionary record2a is continually changing. You know, the positivist intellect (the one forbidding metaphysics)3a operates of the potential of truth1a. Do I have that right? No, the logos3a operates on the potential of truth1a. The modern intellect who derides metaphysics3a operates on the potential of… well… the human will1a, including an insatiable will to know1a. So, of course, scientific concepts2awill change according to the appetites of a will that cannot be satisfied1a.
So, the suggested label is “Does Not Apply”.
0160 But, how does “Does Not Apply” deal with the following artistic concordist judgment (unfolded into a category-based nested form) for day one?

0161 Surely, in the future, astronomers will figure out more and more about how solar systems form and how a star initiates fusion at its core. But, I think we can rest easy that they will not discover that stars do not form from interstellar material.
At the same time, I think that the classification of each verse in day one of the Creation Story as an icon, an index or a symbol of the formation of the solar system is only going to get better, more convincing, as well as more incredible, rather than the other way around.