Presence

I think it's important to make clear that when we say Genesis is a metaphor or an allegory, our impetous to do so stems not from a perceived conflict with Man's current model of the universe (i.e. science) but rather because of the internal textual and narrative evidence that suggests, if not demands, a non-literal interpretation. The qualitative difference is whether or not the Creation narrative retains noetic value apres the acceptance of the non-literal interpretation. As Josh states, this approach on the one hand obviates the need to reconcile a scientific cosmology with the Biblical narrative (a la Schroeder) while at the same time retains and strengthens text's value. Or, if I may paraphrase R. Soloveitchik in The Lonely Man of Faith, "[It] bothers me not a whit."

Josh also says, "Man was not worse off after the "sin" than before. His eating of the fruit of the Tree is inevitable, and it improved him." I think I agree, and have been doing some research on a more lengthy treatment of this subject (with quotes from R. Saadya Gaon, Maimonides and Kafka). Stay tuned.

See Josh's post (linked above) for additional good thoughts. Also check out his intriguing theory that Dumbledore never appeared in Half Blood Prince.