Tell me, how is the idea that the first few chapters of the Bible mean what they say a flawed view?
I guess your interpretation is literal one. I suppose you think the “Good Samaritan” really existed. But that is your perogative, I suppose.
But when the overwhelming mass of scientific evidence indicates evolution is a fact, and a literal interpretation of a religious book replete with symoblic and allegorical parables and other passages and intended as a moral and religious work and not a science text conflicts with that evidence, a reasonable person would re-assess their interpretation of that book to develop an interpretation which is in line with scientific fact and not in conflict with the essential spiritual message of the Bible.
I reject a total literal interpretation of everything in the Bible.
There is that passage in the old testament about the Sun stopping in the heavens during a battle. It was used by the Inquisition to condemn Copernicus, imprison Gallileo and execute others for implying the planets revolved around the sun. Well, we found out that they actually do revolve around the sun and nobody I know of has compromised their faith because the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth.
There are, to be sure, individuals who believe that evolution refutes the biblical description of creation and evolution is due to chance mutations and hence this proves that God does not exist and the Bible is a defective text.
Those individuals are making the same mistake you are. They are interpreting Genesis as though it was intended to be a literal description of creation when in fact it merely states, in effect, that God created the world and everything in it. The rest is more or less literary addition.
The average neolithic pastoralist in Palestine would not understand a detailed description of evolution and how God actually created the world and speciation. Furthermore, that topic is not what the Bible is about anyway.
Evolution may be due to mutations and genetic changes, but terming the results as due to mere chance is expressing a personal opinion about religion which has no basis in science. God created the world, including the laws of evolution by which speciation occurs. Hence, it is not possible in my mind to say that evolution is due to mere chance unless one is inserting one’s personal atheistic prejudices.
These people have found out the “how” but they certainly have not defined the “why,” which is really in the realm of religion and philosphy, not science.