An Oxford research fellow, Andrew Parker, has written a bizarre little book claiming that the book of Genesis is entirely compatible with science and evolution…by simply redefining most of the terms in the Bible after the fact to fit. You know the sort of thing I'm talking about: "Let there be light" is a perfect description of the big bang, by "grass" god really meant "cyanobacteria", the appearance of lights in the sky refers to the evolution of animal vision, etc., etc., etc., yadda yadda yadda. It's ridiculous, of course, mere post hoc retrofitting of valid interpretations to a pile of bronze age bogosity. This is what happens when scientists try to combine old superstitions with real science.
I know of Parker from another connection, too: he's the author of the Light-Switch Hypothesis, described in his book, In the Blink of an Eye. That was the idea that the trigger for the Cambrian explosion was the evolution of vision, which I'd thought might have been an interesting component, but was burdened with far too heavy a load of speculation and a suspicious reliance on single causes. This does explain some of the pseudo-biblical rhapsodies in that book, though.