I've always found the Intelligent Design advocates to be as brittle on their end as the radical atheists are on theirs. As I've said on these fora before, I am not a scientist, and neither is the Bible a science book.
Someone asked why a New World monkey was placed here, and an Old World monkey was placed there. Well, because. The two can't mate and have babies, to my knowledge, can they? Then again, there is a species of Old World monkey that eats or is eaten by the chimpanzee (I forget which, but its damn brutal to watch them fight and see the winner have supper, I've seen footage of it).
Somewhere, there has to be a place where Genesis and science meet, even if that means that the first part of Genesis is literally true, metaphorically true, mythologically trying to make a point, or some other some such explanation of shit. I don't pretend to have all the answers. I do believe that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. That coincides with all our scientific exploration of the planet. The Universe appears to be 13.8 billion years old. That also corresponds to the data we have based on our scientific exploration of the Universe.
Human beings were made in the image and likeness of G-d. Male and female created he them. That does not imply that he is a hermaphrodite. In fact, it is a teaching of our faith that he doesn't have body, parts, or passions. If he did, he would be basically a super-us, like Zeus or Thor or something. That would just be weird.
I shall admit: Christians have a problem. Since Jesus is a manifestation of the deity to them, and he believed literally in Adam and Eve, the Flood, etc, etc, if a conservative Christian does not believe in those things, then he is going against the beliefs of Jesus, who in his mind is the manifestation of his deity.
For a Jew, we do not have that problem. The fact that earlier Jews believed in the literal truth of the first 11 chapters of Genesis doesn't mean that increased knowledge can't give us different ideas of how to view those chapters. We can do that without threat to our Faith, because we don't have a man whom we identify as the deity that believed literally in those things.
The Prophets of Israel did not teach science. They taught religious truths. The fact that Isaiah most likely believed in the literal truth of the first 11 chapters of Genesis doesn't effect our respect for him. We can still utilise his religious truths. He didn't teach anything on the origins of the planet, at least not that I can recall. Ezekiel spoke of of a Heavenly Eden in the sense of Paradise. But one can talk of that without having to believe in the literal truth of Adam and Eve.
I don't know for certain where I go on the first 11 chapters of Genesis. Right now, I am inclined to think that they are in some sense literally true, and likely to be collated with science at some point. But if I am wrong in that (and I concede that I might be), it won't bother me any.