If I may provide another answer (since Cottshop did answer you already) the point is not that God lays out his methods in great detail in Genesis, or that the "important biblical truths" one is rejecting are in Genesis.
Sure, Genesis isn't a science textbook, and sure, it says (for instance) that God created birds, but it doesn't say exactly how other than to say He spoke about it. But that doesn't mean Genesis is an account of evolution. In Genesis, plants appear before the sun does, and birds before land animals. So, the idea that Genesis is the Bible's account of the planet's evolution and the error is in taking it as literal creation is simply impossible.
As for the literal truths...if Genesis is an allegory or fairy tale (because if God didn't create in six days it is NOT a true account of the planet's origins) then there are important parts of the Christian Gospel (most notably the Fall of Man) that are cited as fact by Biblical figures ranging from the author of Job to Paul the Apostle and even Christ Himself. Core Christian truths would then be based on a fairy story.
One does not have to choose between science and Christ, but one cannot have one's cake and eat it too with the Creation account.
Nor does it say that it is not. It says nothing about His exact methods.
And that's just the point. When one attempts to say that evolution goes counter to the "literal truth," as presented in the Bible ... one would be making a false claim.
Again: the Bible is silent on methods. There is no "literal truth" to fall back on, beyond "God was/is involved somehow." But even then, evolution is within the domain of how God's creative process works, even though it's not the only possible explanation.
As for the literal truths...if Genesis is an allegory or fairy tale (because if God didn't create in six days it is NOT a true account of the planet's origins)
That's an interesting area of inquiry -- are those six "days" required to be 24-hour light/dark cycles? Or is the word merely a convenient way to denote a passage of time? I side with the latter. After all, the OT -- and especially Genesis -- was written down from long-established oral traditions, and the exigencies of story-telling can't be ignored.
A reasonable person can understand "six days" in the same way Peter did: But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. There's just no reason to insist on six 24-hour periods.
then there are important parts of the Christian Gospel (most notably the Fall of Man) that are cited as fact by Biblical figures ranging from the author of Job to Paul the Apostle and even Christ Himself. Core Christian truths would then be based on a fairy story.
I don't think so. The Fall can be accepted as true even if the Garden story is not literally true. We recognize our imperfections in relation to what we know is right. Not to mention that we also have the Holy Spirit to convince us of the truth of the Fall and other things.
One does not have to choose between science and Christ, but one cannot have one's cake and eat it too with the Creation account.
One need not do so, if one is willing to accept that it's possible to discern and discover "truth" even when "literal truth" is not available.
For what it's worth, this is NOT a peripheral issue, especially these days. It has real and significant implications for evangelism -- seekers are very often repelled by the antics of those who insist on the completely untenable position that the Bible -- the entire Bible -- is "literally true."
In so doing they end up pitting Christianity against science; and rational people can see the efficacy of science on a daily basis. So what will the rational seeker do? Easy: he'll often run away from the evangelist as fast as he can go.