[King Prout]

I just thought of this, as an appendix and tangential addendum:
A story may be entirely non-factual, yet remain utterly true.
Case in point: no one believes that animals speak or behave as they are presented in Aesop's Fables, but does that have any impact whatsoever on the essential truth of those stories?
Perhaps the apparent disparity between Genesis and more verifiable records is along those lines - God may hve been more interested in imparting His Truth to Man, rather than cramming our heads full of rote memorization of abstruse facts.
Assuming, for the argument: God; God's involvement with Man; God's ultimate authorship of Genesis - none of which are demonstrable.

[PatrickHenry]

A story may be entirely non-factual, yet remain utterly true.

Sure. Most of the science crowd take that approach. But there are those who don't, thus the endless conflicts we encounter in the evolution threads. It's just the way things are.