I think the creation and flood descriptions in Genesis are allegorical and certainly teach lessons but aren’t literally true. There are other portions of the Bible that are clearly allegory. It doesn’t mean they are “not true” just because they teach a lesson rather than detail an occurance. There is also a very fuzzy line between the Old and New Covenants. Should we or shouldn’t we eat shellfish. An apparent contradiction doesn’t hang me up and some things are clearly miracles like the virgin birth and resurrection and, as such, aren’t subject to scientific inquiry. Unlike the flood, for instance, science cand verify the events leading up to them and can record changes as a result of the miracle.
That’s just my approach as supported by other believers far brighter than I.
Here’s where actually following the story helps. A lot of folks get their information secondhand.
Some followings take the creation days as metaphors for larger activities. Reading the story for yourself and understanding the general tenor of the bible can turn up a lot of detail. The documented creation days have no noons or afternoons. It’s like God worked the graveyard shift for six days straight. A progress from darkness into light bespeaks some kind of spiritual progress too, and many creatures are described with a word, nephesh, that connotes breathing, even those that even the ancients would know do not breathe (such as fish).
Did this larger activity entail some kind of evolution? We might not ever be able to prove that it did, though the activity behaves oddly compared to what we might expect from a process driven out of randomness. The appearance of species burgeons as the species get more complex — the very conditions under which one would expect species to be more vulnerable to extinction.
Mystery undergirds the universe in which we live. Science could not hope to approach telling us the entire story.