I would like to see some evidence that shows that Genesis is nothing but a fable or myth. It's fine if that is someone's interpretation, but all we have to appeal to is godless science. Isn't it idolatry to take man's opinion (science) and place it above God's Word? Apparently not, to the Christian Darwinists.
For starters, you can't take the whole book of Genesis as one thing and declare it "a fable or myth", for the simple reason that it is a collection of stories, and those stories come in different kinds of literature.
The closest thing in Genesis to "fable" would be the talking serpent, but that's one element of a story, not the whole thing, so using that to call the story of the Fall a fable would be incorrect. Thus, there's nothing that qualifies as fable in Genesis.
As for myth, using the literary sense and not the common meaning, yes, there's myth in Genesis, meaning that there are stories that are based on real events but are told using legendary and heroic elements with hyperbole and often in poetic prose.
That said, no: "godless science" is hardly all we have to "appeal to" for interpreting Genesis; in fact science isn't of much use at all for the simple reason that no part of Genesis was written in a way that cares in the slightest about science. Genesis has about as much to do with science as the poems of Robert Frost have to do with road maintenance. And in fact asking the question as you do indicates that you've already bought into the placement of science above scripture -- at least if I'm gathering correctly that you believe that for something to be true it has to be 100% scientifically accurate. Many Christians fall into that trap, not realizing that the idea doesn't come from scripture at all, it comes from the philosophy called scientific materialism, a philosophy that is atheistic at root.
However, the problem is, the rest of scripture can easily be dismissed as stories, myths and fables too. Why stop at Genesis? Why not do the same with the gospels too? Why not dismiss any phrase or expression in the Bible we do not like as a mere myth and "not to be taken literally?" A literal resurrection? Nah. A literal crucifixion? Nope, just a metaphor for us dying to self. A literal Jesus? No. Just a metaphor for the Christ within us all (sounds strikingly New Age to me). A literal God? Nope; just an impersonal energy force, or the Universe itself. Where does it end?
That's not a real problem, in fact it's a fallacious argument loved by atheists. Just as finding a certain kind of literature in a library doesn't mean the whole library is that kind of literature, finding that one piece of one book in the Bible can be called "myth" says nothing at all about the rest of the Bible, because the Bible is in fact a library made up of a number of books, some of which are themselves collections of stories, covering well over a dozen different kinds of literature.
Calling a "phrase or expression in the Bible... mere myth" misunderstands what myth is: a lone statement can't be myth, only a complete story can. And we don't label a story myth because we don't like it, a story gets labeled myth because it has characteristic features of myth, i.e. heroic and legendary elements with hyperbole, and often using poetic structure and language.
The question you've avoided here solves all your questions: to decide what a portion of the Bible is saying you don't start with whether you like what it seems to you to say, you start with finding out what kind of literature that particular portion is supposed to be. Some may be chronicle, some may be poetry, some may be parable, some may be myth, and so on, and you decide the meaning based on which of those a portion is.
Regarding metaphor, there's a proper definition of metaphor; it isn't a kind of literature -- it's a phrase or sentence that uses one thing to illuminate understanding of another; for example "His was an uphill battle" to describe a lawsuit in a courtroom.
If we're going to throw out the foundation of the Bible (Creation, sin, the Fall, the devil as a temptor), where do we stop? Why even bother stopping?
Evolution says there is no need for any supernatural entity to have caused the Big Bang, so why believe in a god at all - let alone the God of Christianity? Is fear of hell that strong? (What if hell's a myth and a metaphor for walking in spiritual darkness?) The list goes on.
These are questions for the Christian Darwinists I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer to. But then, science has never had the answers for me. I don't worship science. I worship the True God of heaven and earth. Amen.
Oh, my; there is a great deal of confusion here!
First, "Creation, sin, the Fall, the devil as a temptor" is not the "foundation of the Bible", indeed it isn't even close: the foundation of the Bible is Jesus of Nazareth, Son of God and God the Son, born of the virgin Mary, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. He is the center of the story and the reason why there even is a story! In fact there have been Christians in history who didn't have the Old Testament and they had no problem trusting in and following Christ. If he isn't your foundation, then you aren't doing theology, you're playing philosophical games. We don't trust in Jesus because of the Bible, we trust the Bible because of Jesus!
Now, evolution. Your first mistake is that evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang -- it doesn't. Evolution doesn't even have to do with the origin of life. What evolution is about is how life, once it existed, developed and led to the great abundance of plants, animals, etc. that we have today (and
some that are extinct). Your second mistake is the assertion that in evolution "there is no need for any supernatural entity": while in a narrow sense this may be true, that narrow sense misses the point that evolution as a discipline of science can't say anything at all about supernatural entities; evolution concerns what can be observed, studied, investigated, and concluded from those, followed by testing those conclusions. The means for studying all involve the human senses, and we know quite well that our human senses aren't capable of finding God. So evolution by its scientific nature can't even comment about God, including that it can't comment about whether or not life was started by God, happened by chance, began because life is inevitable in the universe, resulted from aliens in another universe poking around in this one, or any other proposal however logical or outlandish.
Further, insisting that evolution rules out God indicates failure to understand evolution as well as failure of imagination. In my university days, I knew a fair number of students who had been atheists or agnostics who by studying science concluded that there must be a Designer -- and among those were some who reached that conclusion due to studying evolution. So evolution doesn't rule out God, to the contrary it has led people to God!
As a last point, do you realize that you are being rude by calling people "Christian Darwinists" with the implication that this is something bad? Most Christians in fact consider evolution to be the means God used to make all the creatures who live and ever have lived on this planet, and that most certainly does not mean that they "worship science", as you imply.
