It is convenient to use the Bible as literally as we can, as a theological device, not as if the Bible were a word-by-word history of the world. But that doesn't mean that the first chapters of the Genesis narrate a story tale to teach us not to rebel to God: in that case, God could have obtained the same effect saying that man have always sinned, that we created as sinners etc etc.
I am free to believe in a literal Adam and Eve, and I don't think I confess heresy when I do so. Since there's no passage in the Bible saying that science is divinely inspired, infallible and authoritative on everything, I don't see how I need to abandon such a vision only because others accuse me of Bibliolatry. Were the Church Fathers Bibliolaters, because they preferred to treat Adam and Eve as historical characters and not as literary devices? then, the Church has been fallible and heretic (even worse, idol worshippers!).
The only thing I can't understand with your position is this: WHY understanding as mythical only those parts of Genesis, and not the entire Bible? isn't that one and the same canon of writings? Only because a human science disproves the POSSIBILITY of a 6-day creation, or of forming a man out of clay? What about miracles and resurrections? Aren'te they impossible to science? Why should we believe the latter but not the former? The same Orthodox Church taught them both equally; the Fathers believed in a literal Adam as well as in a literal Cross on Golgotha; the Fathers confessed Ancestral Sin in the same way as they confessed the promise of life everlasting... I just don't get how a concordist and yet literal re-reading of the Genesis account should be so easily dismissed. The attitude of all of you seems to say: You don't believe in science, so your heretic! I am bound to believe in God, and not in science! Science tries to explain out the existence of God, so to demonstrate that we're a fruit of chance, and that life is not a spiritual gift, but a lucky circumstance. How can I appreciate this? Do you really think that I'm heretic and idol worshipper because I believe in a literal Adam???
In Christ, Alex
PS: I am not a Protestantizing reader of the Bible. In fact, if I were I wouldn't quote the Church fathers: it's them I honour as the source of our Faith, and not a canon of books of difficult reading. Nevertheless, the Church Fathers took very seriously the Bible, and so I do. Is being conservative a synonim of heresy? I don't thing so, otherwise Paul wouldn't have written "Stand fast and hold the traditions which have been handed down to you, either by word or by our epistles". I left the RCC because of modernism, and now I find the same seed of heresy in some Orthodox believers... these are indeed bad times for Christianity!