One of the other major problems of theistic evolution is that it demands a literary reading for part of Genesis and a historical reading for the rest.
And the criteria for deciding on when to switch is based on the secular humanist interpretation of what fits with its world view.
So, when the Flood is over, and life span of mankind shortens to the present day span, then we can start interpreting it historically.
What happens is that then allows the secular humanist to dictate how Scripture is to be interpreted, within the framework of secular humanism.
But since Scripture is not a secular work it’s the wrong method of interpretation and will always result in a faulty one.
Consistency is important. Either interpret it all as historical, or all as literary. But by choosing the literary, you run into problems when it can be historically verified. It demands a literary interpretation of Jewish history all the way through the death of Jacob, one of the patriarchs of Judaism.
It undercuts the foundation of Jewish history and the promises of God to mankind through Abraham.
It isn’t that totally simple. Particularly in the OT there are numerous instances where a story is clearly realistic but the religious interpretation is questionable. The most obvious case is the story of Uzzah and the “ark of the covenant”. The construction of the thing reads 100% identically to the instructions for building a Leyden bottle or primitive capacitor and Uzzah obviously electrocuted himself when he tried to steady the thing on the wagon. Nonetheless the ancient author wrote down that God slew him for a transgression. God himself would never make such a mistake i.e. the story was clearly written down by men, who are fallable.