So, I actually am from America, and I guess even the liberal states teach the fundamentalist version. The stories of Adam, Noah, Moses etc. were always presented as literal events — my Sunday School and youth teachers (even preachers that I listen to today) never gave any indication that they were metaphorical. Given that entire job of church teachers and pastors is to pass on accurate understanding of the religion and help their charges build and keep a lasting faith (eternity is supposedly at stake, after all), I don’t think it’s unfair to hold Christianity as a whole to how I was taught it.
As I described in the article, science doesn’t really conduct its work intending to comment on religion. But for a religion that claims a god actively intervening in human history, when its sacred text makes claims about events in the natural world, it’s reasonable to expect naturalistic/scientific observations to support those claims.
I do have questions for you: you say that the first 11 chapters are supposed to be read allegorically, conveniently stopping with Abram. So, everything from Abram on can/should be taken literally? What is it about that point specifically that changes from metaphorical to literal?
Thank you very much for reading!