Let me guess: by "correctly interpreted" you mean the first eleven chapters of Genesis reduced to "didactic mythology" because they clash with "science," am I correct?
Why don't you allow "science" to sit in judgment on the virgin birth, the resurrection of J*sus, etc.? Why do you suddenly throw "science" away when it tells you such things could not have possibly happened? Why are only the first eleven chapters of Genesis thrown into the garbage can?
Talk about inconsistency in the use of "science" to overrule the Bible!
Neither I nor the Catholic Church "throw the first 11 chapters of Genesis in the garbage can."
For instance, there are at least 4 different ways to interpret the word "day" in the Creation accounts. The Catholic Church does not rule for or against any one of them as a matter of dogma.
There are likewise a half a dozen major, different ways to account for the biological diversity of life on earth. (Here I'm including even wild ones like Francis Crick's idea of "panspermia.") Catholic Church does not rule for or against any one of them as a matter of dogma, either.
I think the Cathoic Church shows an admirable and humble restraint in areas where our knowledge is so decisively incomplete.
But we've been around the block on this several times before, ZC. I will refrain from getting into it with you again.