While I'm not ready to post the whole idea yet, I too am a Christian and I have been recently looking closely at Genesis for a number of reasons, one of which I'll briefly deal with here:
There are those who say Genesis has two stories about the creation of man and thus it can't be true because these are contradictory. These will often maintain that the overview followed by a closeup concept is an "excuse."
But look closely at the text and you may see what I see: there are not two stories about the creation of man but rather two stories about the creation of animals.
The first story about the creation of animals cumulates in Genesis 1:24-25 with the calling forth of:
living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beast of the earth after their kind;
Please notice that all of these, like those earlier creations are called forth from the Earth as a result of God's commandment.
The second story about the creation of animals takes place in Genesis 2:19:
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
Now, one might suggest that I'm picking at nits: two stories for this vs. two stories for that; however, there is an important distinction between these two alternatives and why what I'm suggesting SOLVES a lot of problems that radical naturalist presume creationist to have.
The reason is this: the second story about the creation of animals takes place within a very specific context that is itself distinct from the earlier story.
This context is given, from first to last, in Genesis 2:18-25:
Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make a helper suitable for him.
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
And the man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.
So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; the He took one of his ribs, an closed up the flesh at that place.
And the LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.
And the man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.
Now, on the surface of it, it would seem an odd inclusion for God to start making critters at the moment He decides that it isn't good for the man to be alone. But there are a few things to make not of about this text.
First, among the animals created in this story only what we would consider more substantial land creatures are included. There is no mention of "creeping things" or any of the creatures of the sea. So Adam wasn't presented with worms, insects, fish or even the precursors of the whales.
Second, these animals are created in a different way than those in the other story. Whereas before they were called forth from the Earth and its seas, this time God forms them from out of the ground. So the animals Adam was presented with were different that all the other animals round about.
Logically, they were representative of their breeds so that the proto-feline called forth from the earth and the proto-feline formed from the ground would have been the same sort of creature with identical genetics and so-forth.
But the latter creature is distinct in the time, place and effort of its creation.
Time: later in the same day or the next day (for birds).
Place: near Adam rather than everywhere on the Earth.
Effort: formed from the ground rather than called forth from the Earth.
Again, with that last bit you might well accuse me of picking nits; however, please observe that the description of HOW these latter animals were made coincides with the description of HOW Adam was made.
I would suggest that their formation in Genesis 2:19 is NOT some random inclusion but it occurs at that time and in that fashion for a purpose related to Genesis 2:18.
God presented him with them as a object lesson of sorts.
Please notice that none of the creatures presented had a nature which Adam could recognize as being "a helper suitable for him." Thus a proto-feline was what he called it as he recognized its nature. Likewise, when he met her, he immediately recognized her nature and responded to it.
She was a suitable helper and just as before he gives her a name, "Woman," but he also goes a step further and takes her as his wife (with no apologies: if she's his wife, in OT economy they've had sex ... right there in the garden with God standing by ... "not ashamed" indeed!).
There is no indication that Adam knew he needed anything before these events, as the only commands He had yet to give him necessarily reflected his responsibility (to cultivate the garden), his provision and the one restriction.
It is only after she is around, does Genesis 1:28 happen (which may mean that He (God) didn't actually personally command her about eating ... but that's a whole different can'o'worms).
But there is something to notice here too. If the animals in Genesis 2:19 could be said to have a similar creation to that of the man, the same IS NOT true of the woman. She is "fashioned" from something taken from the man and is not called from the Earth nor formed from the ground. She is distinct, even from the man.
But so too may the animals formed in 2:19 be distinct from their earlier counterparts. They are in comparison special creations created for this process that I've termed an object lesson.
The lesson?
Maybe that the man (and us by extension) should to not look to the created world, or at least the world of animals, to find or fulfill his needs for meaningful fellowship besides his relationship to his God.
Maybe so the man would understand the difference between the woman and everything else.
In any case, and it must be stated, God was hardly surprised that the man didn't have a thing for any of these animals––even if they were specially created. He knew what He was doing and what He was doing was a process that led up to her creation.
So in a sense, the object lesson was a kind of election where innumerable candidates "lost" and was chosen––the correct one.
Think about it: even if the man didn't know WHY God was parading these animals in front of him, he did know that He wanted them to be named according to their nature. None of them had a nature that spoke of "helper" until he met her.
So here's where Genesis may actually demand something be true that the radical naturalist seem to deem a falsification of the creation story: the similarity of genotypes among the animals of all kinds.
Why? Well, even though God knew exactly what was going to happen when He presented Adam with this "choice," that doesn't mean that the offer to select a helper––suitable or not––wasn't genuine (kind of like the way God gives men the choice of what to do with Him ... to be in a right relationship on His terms or not). That's what makes it an object lesson: technically Adam may have had the ability tip make a choice that would have determined the final form for himself and his offspring.
For that choice to be legitimate, so that when he chooses the Woman later it has enhanced meaning, it would be necessary that the animals were at least somewhat like the man. Likewise, as representatives these would be the same as others like them. So when the man passes on every furry's dream, those animals would have still––by necessity––has considerable amounts of their genotype in common with the man (whose final form is now fixed ... a weak, hairless, defenseless biped with soft muscle tone, dull teeth and infantile features ... you know, us).
Of course, none of the above should be deemed anything theological to hang a hat upon ... It's just my analysis based on the text and what I know from science ... and I'm no one special.