Here are my notes from class when we discussed a very brief summary of the literary framework interpretation of the creation account:
In the Hebrew world, they didn't think of "creation" as we post-Enlightenment people do. John Walton's (NIV Genesis commentary author) view of the creation account is that it is not an ontological account, but a phenomological one. It's not exact and technical; the language is loose. Literary terms such as "figurative,""literal," or "poetry" are too simplistic for OT genre.
In Hebrew culture, something existed when it had a function. It's not a physical issue, but a functional one. Being brought into existence meant:
(A) Being given a name
(B) Being separated from other things
(C) Being given a function
In 49 instances in the OT that the word "create" is used, the object is not physical, for example: purity, Zion, or darkness. God said, "Let there be a period of light," which according to Walton means He created time.
Maybe we aren't supposed to asked questions like, given the literary framework, "Did Adam and Eve literally eat an apple from a tree?" The fact that we say they ate an apple could testify to influences outside of the Bible that affect our interpretation of the creation story. The Bible never said it was an apple.
I don't know as much as I would like to know about this literary framework view, but it does sound like a good alternative to 1) throwing out science, 2) throwing out the Bible, and 3) using the Bible to fill in the gaps that science leaves.