Of course a non-literal reading would reduce problems in accepting evolution, even if evolution is not true. This is stating the obvious. It’s a bit like saying that my objections to evolution are due to believing scripture… the difficulties would be dropped if I was an atheist. But this is a kind of generalization which is essentially not helpful to the discussion of evolution in particular, and the details of the Genesis account.
We also have the problems of dealing with a non-literal reading, or even a semi-literal reading of Genesis. How far do we go? What objective standards do we use? Why are some parts literal and other parts non-literal? Are the standards external or internal to scripture. Can we use literal parts to understand non-literal parts? or vice versa?
Was Jesus deluded? Was Paul mistaken? Was the redeemer promised? Is sin the fault of man or of God?
Can miracles happen? are miracles all natural? are they delusional?
What is the resurrection? Did Moses and Elijah really appear with Jesus on the mount before Peter James and John?
Is evolution directed? Is it undirected and accidental? Is human death different than animal death? What is a soul?
What is eternal life? Will the righteous and unrighteous really be separated? Does man have choices? are his thoughts predestined?
These questions cannot be determined or helped by loose allegorical stories which are in essence determined to be untrue and impossible.
Even metaphors must refer to something real and reasonable. Or at least a metaphor must refer to something definable.
And then, when in doubt, evolution must answer credibly, the scientific questions and criticisms. If it is inviolable, then we know that it is nothing more than another faith competing for the minds of people.
In that case, we as humans begin to choose the faith which gives us hope, and gives us certainty of the character of God, and not the hopeless undirected faith of an accidental universe in which any outcome is equally valid.
Your questions are also mine… that such explanations would be necessary for biologos to fulfill a valid vacumn in the spectrum of positions on the interrelationship between scripture and evolution. Biologos has said: "We believe that God created humans in biological continuity with all life on earth, but also as spiritual beings. God established a unique relationship with humanity by endowing us with his image and calling us to an elevated position within the created order. Thus, BioLogos believes that God created humanity using the process of evolution and endowed us with his image. - See more at: http://biologos.org/common-questions/human-origins/image-of-god#sthash.tdbVJfeQ.dpuf They state in the same article that either a naturalistic process or a miraculous process for the creation of man is possible: God could have used a miraculous process to create our spiritual capacities, or used some combination of natural processes and divine revelation to develop these capacities. Either way, God is the creator of our whole selves, including both our physical and spiritual aspects. - See more at: http://biologos.org/common-questions/human-origins/image-of-god#sthash.tdbVJfeQ.dpuf
They choose not to pick the exact process. But they agree that the process was not accidental; that it was directed at some scale to achieve the obejctive at which it arrived.
Philosophically, I agree we cannot limit God. But from the perspective of scripture, the character of God, and our relationship with God, it is obvious that the story of Genesis was not necessary, if indeed man did not create the rift with God, and if God did not create man “good”, and in good relationship with himself, and if man is not intrinsically different than the rest of creation. And in fact, the story of Genesis merely becomes an obstacle, rather than a benefit in that case.