Do you think that Genesis is literally fact? This isn't hard.
Creationist is a well defined term of which you are familiar.
This is not to me, but will offer some general comments from ignorance, since collectively we are not well studied to answer in depth many things that could be asked, nor those awaiting an answer to possibly have the background to fully understand the answer should that occur. There are those that exist with “better” understandings though.
Generally speaking, once Protestantism was formed the Christian community grew out of Catholicism to what some would say is now roughly 60,000 denominations. All will state that they are followers of the bible and yet the obvious question is how do all follow the bible and have so many different understandings? I think that answer lies in A) Some may not have in depth knowledge of the history, culture and verbiage of a particular time for understanding rather than understanding through those times with 20th century eyes. B) Which denomination or person chose a literal instead of allegorical understanding or vice versa. What book or scripture area is taken literally instead of allegorically is what differentiates so many understandings and this exists in ALL denominations. I think this is literal, but that is allegorically and so forth.
As an example Jonah and the whale was written about 800 years before Christ. Some will take that as a literal interpretation and understanding whereas others will see that as an allegorical representation of the resurrection 800 years later. For me it is an allegorical representation, but there are many that hold a different view. Different views or understandings happen in everything. All saw Purdue last night, but there would be many different understandings of who the best player was and so forth or what each player’s role was towards victory. To your more pointed question of Genesis I have a hard time digesting a literal understanding, but can neither state an allegorical view due to my ignorance. There are many other areas in the OT of which I’m ignorant. If the OT were sufficent, there would be no reason for the NT and this is NOT to suggest the OT has no value. Understanding that connection can be very difficult for the lay person.
I’m not sure if you mentioned evolution at some point in this thread or not, relative to man? I also do not think there is near the following of evolution of a previous species to jump into human species as 50 years ago. That said, evolution of an appearance of many is allowed in some denominations. Catholic teachings allow an individual to decide outside of the “soul” evolving. When we say man was created in His image, that thought may go much deeper than a physical appearance. The survival of the 7 deadly sins suggest the consistency of man's vices. Some would say the “soul” is that difference in weight of an individual prior to and immediately after death that is not explained by the volume of gas and waste released.
Anyway, I think for those sincere in understanding, reconciliation of science and the bible is a chasm wider for some than others and probably affected somewhat by our ignorance in both areas for in-depth paradigms held. There you have it…what I do not know. 😊
edited below
In that Catholic to Protestant conversion that led to Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist that was misunderstood by Hugo Black???? in creating the separation of church and state resulting from Henry 8ths desire for a son.