Different portions of the books of the Bible are intended for different purposes. We can't just say that the creation story is supposed to be both history and a morality tale. There is no reason why this must be so.
I think the account was meant to be an accurate representation of what happened in the first seven days of the universe.
That's fine. Just as long as you recognize that others may differ and not be in opposition to God. We can accept completely the moral message while recognizing allegory as such.
In Exodus 20 God even emphasizes that the seven days of Creation are seven literal, 24-hour days (Ex 20:8-11).
No, He doesn't. He makes use of the creation tale to make the point that a once-weekly rest is part of God's design. You read into this what you want to see.
SD
How do you know that a "once-weekly rest is part of God's design"? Does it really say that, or are you reading into it what you want to see? Maybe God didn't mean a literal week.
I'm certainly no expert, but I always thought context was important. I am simply amazed that you are accusing someone else of reading into scripture something that isn't there when you are the one suggesting that the Bible doesn't really mean what it says.
You can't get "more complex and majestic" than the creation of an entire universe ex nihilo. Any "evolutionary" change beyond that would pale by comparison.
Theistic evolution makes God out to be a fool who didn't have a distinct plan or purpose for His creation. He just guided things along as they naturally changed. That, of course, isn't the case. He knew what He was doing long before time began.
By the way, we aren't too worried. Theistic evolution doesn't destroy God; it merely reveals the profundity of human ignorance.