Creation seems out of order. If God made light on the first day, what was giving the light, since the sun doesn't appear until the fourth day? And God tackles the major geological and astronomical features during the first two days—light, sky, water, earth. But Day 3 is a curious interruption—plant creation—that is followed by a return to massive universe-shaping projects on Day 4 with the sun, moon, and stars. The plant venture is a tangent—-like putting a refrigerator into a house before you've put the roof on.
Does the Lord love insects best? They're so nice He made them twice: On Day 5 He makes "the living creatures of every kind that creep." Three verses, and 24 hours later, He makes "all kinds of creeping things of the earth."
"Creeping" is all over these last few verses of Creation. God tells His newly minted man and woman that they rule over world and its creatures, including, as the King James puts it—"every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." What a superb phrase! It's perfect for insects, terrorists, and children.
Chapter 2 Creation Story, Take 2. This is confusing. Here is an entirely different Creation, in which God uses an entirely different method and carries it out in a different order. And second Creation has a very different view about men and women than first Creation. In Chapter 1, after God has made everything else, He makes man and woman together, "in His image." Not in Chapter 2. Before he makes plants and animals, He forms man from dust and blows in his nose to vivify him. Nothing about "in His image" here. And no woman, either.
Only later, after the plants and animals have been made, does God create woman, from Adam's rib. In second Creation, the woman is made to be man's "helper." In Chapter 1 they are made equal. Why is Chapter 2 the Creation that conservatives have settled on, with woman as helpmeet? Why not first Creation?
The misplacement of the creation of plants aside, Genesis 1 seems a very good overview of creation. Personally, it leads me to believe that the Bible is a divinely inspired document that was corrupted by human error, before reaching the earliest versions we have. Switch the second part of the 3rd day and 4th day around and you have.
Day 1: You don't need a sun for light. You need energy, like and explosion -- a big bang. Day one is the creation of a universe in a "Big Bang" of light.
Days 2 and First part of 3. Matter in its various forms is organized out of the energy that formed the Universe.
Day 4. Matter is organized further into the astronomical bodies.
The focus now moves from the universe in general to the Earth in particular.
Day 3 part 2. Plant life -- the simplest form of life -- is created.
Day 5. The early forms of animal life are created. Creatures of the water and things that creep.
Day 6 Part 1. Mammals are created.
Day 6 Part 2. Humans -- or, more significantly, intelligent, spiritual, creatures in God's image are created.
As for the second creation story, Talmudic teaching is that the two creation stories are the same creation told from two different points of view. The first being the God-centered, broad view; the latter being the narrower, human-centered view. I've covered earlier in this thread, why I think the second creation story also describes evolution.
In any case, the creation story was not written as a modern, scientific text. It was written as a broad overview for a primitive society. Read that way -- something that partisans of both side of this debate fail to do, IMO -- it is remarkably accurate.