I agree it's not scientifically accurate, but when is it truth? If Adam and Eve weren't real, does it follow Cain wasn't either? What about Abraham, Moses and Job?
The early accounts of Genesis at least are clearly myth and indeed the consensus of Biblical scholars is that the first part of Genesis is a combination of two older quite differing accounts..with perhaps both recalling an oral tradition of a move from hunter-gather society to an agricultural one. The myth of Cain and Abel recalls the clashes between the two lifestyles.
It's fairly clear that there is no geological, historical, archaeological or any other scientific evidence for the story of Adam and Eve or that a global flood engulfed the world. There's no evidence that Abraham ever existed. The story of Noah's Ark in Genesis is considered by modern scholars to be directly dependent upon an older Sumerian/Babylonian version dated to 2100–2000 BC and altered to serve monotheistic purposes somewhere between 1000 BC-500 BC. The story of Moses was at least partly mythical, the Conquest of Canaan under Joshua is almost certain not to have happened as there is almost no evidence to support it. Indeed archaeology suggests that instead of the Israelites conquering Canaan after the Exodus (as suggested by the Book of Joshua), most of them had in fact always been there; the Israelites were simply Canaanites who developed into a distinct culture.Recent surveys of long-term settlement patterns in the Israelite heartlands show no sign of violent invasion or even peaceful infiltration, but rather a sudden demographic transformation about 1200 BC in which villages appear in the previously unpopulated highlandsthese settlements have a similar appearance to modern Bedouin camps, suggesting that the inhabitants were once pastoral nomads, driven to take up farming by the collapse of Canaanite city-culture.
The Exodus itself is doubtful. Despite modern archaeological investigations and the meticulous ancient Egyptian records from the period of Ramesses II there is an obvious lack of any archaeological evidence for the migration of a band of semitic people across the Sinai Peninsula, except for the Hyksos. Even that throws up other problems, as the Hyksos became not slaves but rulers, and they were chased away rather than chased to bring them back.It has been suggested that the Exodus narrative perhaps evolved from vague memories of the Hyksos expulsion, spun to encourage resistance to the 7th century domination of Judah by Egypt.
If people want to doubt the evidence provided by archaeology, what about trying genetics instead, which is far more difficult to argue against. In terms of human genetics, the Biblical story of Adam and Eve cannot be historically correct. The concept that all humans descended from just two historical persons is impossible. Genetic evidence indicates all modern humans descended from a group of at least 10,000 people, about 200,000 years ago due to the amount of human genetic variation. If all humans descended from two individuals several thousand years ago, as Young Earth creationism supposes for example, it would require an impossibly high mutation rate to account for the observed variation. That those 10,000 people worshipped Yahweh can never be proven. The Bible account of Adam and Eve being the ancestor of humanity is fantasy. Not surprisingly. There doesn't appear to be any indication that the Israelites of circa 500 BC - 1,000 BC understood genetics at all. Hence their story of Adam and Eve (which in turn was based on older Babylonian and Sumerian myth).
All the myth of Adam and Eve seems to be explaining is the human shift from hunter gathering to farming between 10,000 BC and 6,000 BC and passed down as part of an oral tradition. While this is far more speculative than the genetic record of humanity, a plausible theory has been suggested that the myth of the first humans was derived to explain this shift. The myth seems to be suggesting that harmony with nature was lost with the expulsion from the Garden of Eden and that the nature of mankind started to same. Some of what happened is reflected in aspects of the myth.
For example, the work
"Paleopathology at the Origins of Agriculture", edited by Drs. Mark Nathan Cohen and George J. Armelagos suggested that childbirth become more painful and dangerous with the transition to sedentism, urbanism and domestication, because the pelvic canal narrowed further with the changes to people’s sedentary diet. This was mentioned in the Adam and Eve story at the expulsion from the Garden of Eden in Genesis.
“I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children.” Genesis 11.16. It also has been suggested that with the movement to agriculture, people also discovered the link between sexual intercourse and birth (He knew his wife”) at this time and this produced further changes in relation to ancestry, the male role, monogamy, children and property. It was a momentous change for humans, just as the expulsion from the Garden of Eden was in the story of the Fall in Genesis.
Far fetched?
Certainly no more far-fetched that the literal interpretation of Genesis that Adam and Eve were the first persons on earth as suggested in the Old Testament. That was most definitely NOT the case. And at least there is some palaentological and archaeological evidence to support the above, whereas there is none to support that Adam and Eve were the first persons on earth.
In other words most, if not all, of Genesis and probably most of the books of the Bible up to about Kings and Chronicles is myth.