I find these comments to be of great interest.
If the scientific evidence did support a literal Genesis, do you think you would be saying the same thing? I doubt it. Instead, you would probably be talking about how important it is that the scientific evidence supports your interpretation of Genesis, right?
I think the discomfort you have is that what we see in the Creation does not fit what is described by a literal interpretation of Genesis. It isn't evolution that conflicts with Genesis. Instead, it is the observable facts that conflict with Genesis. As Galileo said, God did not create us with the ability to use reason and logic only for us to forgo their use when we look at the world around us.
Also, our interpretations of Genesis are as much man made as our interpretations of the scientific evidence. The difference is that Genesis can be interpreted allegorically. Not so with the scientific evidence. If the two are in conflict, then it would seem the wiser choice to adopt an allegorical view of Genesis than to forgo reason and logic and keep them in conflict, at least in my view.