I know many here do not think the early chapters of Genesis are historical and I certainly agree with that assessment but I would like to engage in some scriptural exegesis. I think some people may under-appreciate the ramifications this has for the rest of the Bible and our beliefs. If nothing else, the conservatives seem to appreciate this point a bit more. So I want to put forth a few scriptural thoughts for engagement.
 It is likely Paul, a first-century Pharisee, thought of Adam as a real person. There is nothing wrong with this as Paul is a product of his times. However, Paul’s theological arguments in scripture at times appear to presuppose this historicity as well (Rom 5:12-20, see also 1 Cor 15:22,45). In reading the argument of Romans 5, just as Paul thinks sin, death and atonement are real, we may reasonably conclude he thinks the same of Adam and the Garden. He is also contrasting Jesus’ death on the cross with the fall in the Garden, a comparison that makes little sense if both characters are not historical. It is easy to view Adam and Eve as a metaphor for all of us but the nuances of Paul’s theological arguments in Roman’s 5 appear to be lost if we do this. Where did death come from? The fossil record and modern science tells us it certainly existed long before the first humans. Did we really mess up the world, or was it like this all along? There wasn’t much by way of belief in an afterlife in Ancient Judaism before the Babylonian exile. Granted that historical reality, there is no reason to assume Genesis 3:19 means anything other than actual physical death as a result. This would have been the traditional understanding. Is there any reason to interpret Romans 5 differently aside from the fact that that the foundation of Paul’s argument crumbles under the weight of modern science if we don’t do so? Paul does live in a later time period where belief in an afterlife had clearly developed in Judaism but interpreting him as meaning spiritual death reeks of harmonization.
 Jesus also referenced the creation story. When responding to a question about divorce, not only did Jesus dare to condemn what the Law explicitly regulates, he did it by referring to God’s creative activity: “in the beginning God made them male and female.” The key phrase here I think that is often overlooked is in the beginning. Jesus didn’t say after 13.7 billion years, at the end of cosmic history, a few seconds before midnight if the history of the universe were condensed into one twenty-four hour day, that God made Adam and Eve. He made them in the beginning just like Genesis says he did. Day six of the first week makes a lot more sense than at the end of history, 13.7 billion years later. Jesus also referenced “the days of Noah” and the flood story (Matthew 24:37-39) along with Cain and Abel, the alleged children of Adam and Eve (Matthew 23:35). We can dismiss it as convention but Jesus also seems to support Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch (John 5:46).
 There are several genealogies tracing lineages of Jesus and others all the way back to Adam. This practice appears to presuppose Adam was historical (Luke 3:38, 1 Chronicles 1) considering it would be very difficult to demonstrate the authors thought different of any other names in their lists.
 The pseudonymous author of 1 Timothy also tells us Adam was formed first and it was Eve who was deceived (2:13-14). A psalmist probably reiterates Genesis in saying “by the word of the Lord the heavens were made” and that he “gathered the waters of the sea as in a bottle” and as he spoke things came to be (Psalm 33:6-9). Just like the author of Genesis, the rest of scripture, which references or alludes to Genesis 1-11 seems to take it at face value. We don’t see any glimpses of life as "self-organizing” but rather it and the world were created by God’s who was active and involved in the entire process from start to finish. What we see is clear theology on the sovereignty of God.
I’m guessing some might think the creation story is mythological but somehow Adam and Eve are historical in some details . While I think the fundamentalists are completely wrong, it is here they have the leg up. At least they are consistent and stick to their guns rather than deny the majority of the information as mythological but then try to cherry-pick and salvage a few snippets as historical to save the integrity of parts of the New Testament. No good hermeneutic will ever be found for doing this aside from thinking the words of an incarnated Jesus who was clearly not omniscient (who touched his robe, not knowing the day or hour) must be 100% accurate in everything he said.
None of the details in Genesis 1-11 should be taken as historical based on the findings of modern science, a study of comparative literature and the actual contents of the stories which by modern standards, are clearly fictional. Lest we forget, Adam started in a magical garden with a talking serpent, had a wife made from his rib and lived to be 930 years old. Ignorant of “good and evil” he somehow was expected to listen to God despite not knowing any better and incurred a punishment that is excessively exorbitant. At every turn in the story we are faced with perplexing details. How does one possibly go about in filtering a historical Adam out from under this mess? The fundamentalists are correct on one point. We can call the Garden story just that, an inspired mythological creation story, but this has under-emphasized ramifications for how we view the the authority and inspiration of scripture as a whole and the knowledge limits on some issues of our Lord and Savior.