The first chapter of Genesis can't of course be taken for what it claims to be: a factual, historical account of the creation in six days of 24 hours. On the other hand, reading it the non-litteral way is a twisting of scriptures. I'm forced to conclude that the unknown writer of that passage simply wrote what he thought was a reasonable account of the creation.
That man is often ridiculed for having written that light preceded its source, the sun. Yet I don't think he was so stupid to fail to see that light emanates from the sun. This makes his account even more intriguing.
He also had some good, valid, points. For instance, mankind is only one family, and life is more than organized dust. I personaly add the fact that we have been created by a caring God.
Why not simply take the human factor into consideration when reading the Bible? For example, I've always been amazed to see how so many Christians take every verse in Paul's letters to first century Christians as a sacred pronouncement of God, while Paul himself insisted so much that he wasn't God and could err.
I personaly believe that the Bible is an authentic account of God's dealings with mankind, but as men wrote it, it naturaly contains human errors. Why are many Christians so much uncomfortable with that fact?