'...nam error circa creaturas redundat in falsam de Deo sententiam'
(...wrong thinking about creation will lead to wrong thinking about God)
'As the science of divine and eternal things, theology must be patient until the science that contradicts it has made a deeper and broader study of its field and, as happens in most cases, corrects itself. In that matter theology upholds its dignity and honour more effectively than by constantly yielding and adapting itself to the opinions of the day.'So wrote the erudite late 19th century Dutch theologian Hermann Bavinck, in his Reformed Dogmatics, volume 2 'God and Creation' (p. 507). Bavinck was prescient (yes Virginia, even the Reformed get some things right); over a hundred years after he made that statement, developments in science have only served to confirm its truth. In a post-Einstein, post-Popper, post-Polanyi, post-Kuhn world, it really is untenable to hold to a naive late 19th C/early 20th C positivism when it comes to the claims of science (and it is somewhat ironic that evangelical Christians are among those who do).
In a dialogue on the biblical account of creation with a colleague pastor recently, I ventured to suggest that since Holy Scripture claims to be true in what it says about events transpiring in space and time, we should accord it 'epistemological primacy' over other purported authorities (i.e. human authorities) when these events are in view. In simple terms, that means that when these events are in view we should assess the claims of science from a Biblical standpoint rather than assessing the claims of the Bible from a scientific standpoint. But isn't this 'Biblicism' or, even worse, 'Fundamentalism'? Well, I may come back to that in the near future; all I'll say in response for the present is that name calling is a poor substitute for a reasoned argument.
Now, on to my main point: I don't think that theologians who accord science epistemological primacy in matters of creation, to the extent that in order to accomodate the claims of science they reduce the creation narrative to a poem (this is a very weak argument since the Genesis one narrative bears neither of the two characteristic marks of Hebrew poetry i.e. syllabic rhythm and paralellism), a saga (a highly stylized piece of literature with perhaps some historical kernel of truth that is in any case no longer accessible to us, but which yet communicates theological truth) or a polemical myth (in the sense of a completely fictional story that yet confesses the truth that Yahweh is creator in the face of the errors of the Babylonian cosmology), actually realize how much of the Christian revelation they open up to question once science is admitted to be an arbiter of the truth (i.e. the 'factual-historical' nature) of what the Bible unequivocally presents as happening in space and time. The fact that otherwise competent theologians and Old Testament scholars have advanced theories such as those bracketed above concerning the origins and purpose of Genesis 1 is testimony to both the parlous state of theology in modern times and the awe in which science is held by quite sophisticated people who really ought to know better.
Once the historicity (factual-historical nature) of the first chapter of Genesis is questioned on the assumption that science has disproved it, inevitably it seems that the process continues into the second and third chapters, and the historicity of the figure of Adam is brought into question, since 'the scientific consensus' presently holds that there was no such single progenitor of the human race. With that, the whole redemptive tapestry of the Biblical narrative, and indeed the Christian revelation, begins to unravel into innumerable disconnected threads. I'm yet to see a church body which goes down this path in its official theology manage to weave the tapestry together again. More often, they seem to go about weaving a different sort of religious tapestry all together (c.f J. Gresham Machen's seminal study, Christianity and Liberalism).
If you're interested in questions of science and theology, the blog of Dr John Byl (bylogos.blogspot.com), a Canadian professor emeritus of mathematics (PhD in Astronomy) is worth a look. I don't vouch for Dr Byl's Reformed theology, but his reflections on the intersection of theology and science are quite stimulating. He is also the author of two books on the subject which are available from the usual outlets.
Just on a personal note, my own journey as been from atheistic evolution in my teens to theistic evolution to old earth/specially created Adam to a probably young earth/recently created Adam position. Which is to say I seem to be on an opposite trajectory to most of my colleagues and contemporaries - not that I'm a contrarian just for the sake of it, mind you...I simply like to think I'm a more consistent thinker than they ;0)