I highly doubt it given the complete lack of any frame of reference.
What frame of reference do you need to understand a long period of time? At what point did humans have the proper reference point for understanding a long period of time?
What frame of reference do you need to understand x changed into y? At what point did humans have the proper reference point for understanding the basic idea of evolution? Obviously it was understood by some ancient Greeks. So why don't you give us more reason than your "highly doubt it" to believe that the audience of Genesis couldn't have understood that?
In the sense that it does not fall easily into any one genre.
So you're claiming "biblical scholars of virtually every opinion" agree that Genesis doesn't "fall easily" into a genre. Could you back that up? Can you show that's the general consensus?
You are missing my meaning - it's not that the Creation account taken literally includes miracles, it's that the Creation account taken literally directly contradicts the evidence we have. Even miracles leave evidence behind - when Christ healed the blind the result was a man who could now see, when He rose from the dead there was an empty tomb - can you find an example of a miracle which leaves deceitful evidence behind which indicates that it never happened? Because that's what would have to have happened for the Creation account to be literal - a series of miracles that made it look like no miracles occurred.
I didn't miss your meaning. You said "[Genesis] can be interpreted literally, and it can be interpreted as more symbolic allegorical--but only one of these interpretations has the benefit of not contradicting what we observe about how the universe works."
All I have to do is plug in a different narrative for Genesis and see how it holds up: "[The Jesus narrative] can be interpreted literally..."
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Now if you want to change boats and give different reasons, that's fine. I'll see how your new reasons hold up.
Jesus heals a blind man. If you took that blind man to a modern optometrist, do you know that the optometrist would be able to examine the formerly blind man and say "I can see that this man was blind until last Tuesday, when he suddenly regained his sight"? Is that the sort of evidence of miracle you have in mind? If so, how do you know that would be the case?
Jesus multiplies bread and fish. If you take the fish, for instance, to a marine biologist and show him the fish would he be able to deduce that it was produced miraculously by examining it's biological structure or its genetics? Is that the sort of evidence that would be left behind? If so, how do you know that would be the case?
Jesus rises from the dead. If you took his body and examined it, would you have been able to say "this body was dead for three days!"? Granted this is a sui generis case, since Jesus was raised in a glorified body.
But in fact, you have no direct evidence that Jesus healed a blind man or that he multiplied food, so your excuses don't get you very far. Your reading a narrative that was written thousands of years ago to a "primitive" audience that didn't have our knowledge of genetics, biology, optics, etc. Everything we do know about how those systems operate contradicts a literal reading of these narratives. So I don't see how you've escaped the conclusion by your own method that, at least, it's more beneficial for us to believe it's all non-historical.
You want to plug the hole in your boat by claiming there would be evidence for these miracles. But, thus far, it's not clear what kind of evidence you think there would be and, on one account (e.g., that an optometrist could tell that the man had been blind), this looks highly implausible. What reason do we have to accept this?
can you find an example of a miracle which leaves deceitful evidence behind which indicates that it never happened?
Can you even find an example of a miracle which leaves behind evidence that indicates it didn't occur by natural processes? How many miraculous subjects have you studied after the fact? After all, if I wanted to get cute with you I could point out that God caused the red sea to split by a strong wind. That looks like a natural process, yet if anything qualifies as a surely miracle that does. So is that "deceitful evidence"
And if you want to play the "deceitful" card, that cuts both ways. Instead of God deceiving 21st century scientists, with their causal-closer presuppositions, God deceived the original audience of Genesis and millions of Christians throughout history by having a narrative recorded that seems to clearly teach something contrary to what you say actually happened.
So you trade God the deceiver in nature with God the deceiver in Scripture. Look good?
Now you may want to argue that Genesis doesn't intend to communicate this deceitful message, but then a lot of YEC will want to argue that the evidence in the natural order isn't intended to communicate a deceitful message either. So, again, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Gen2:4-25)