Defenders of Peter Enns sometimes invoke the category of “inspired myths.” They justify this category as a divine accommodation to historical horizon of ANE readers. A scientifically accurate account would be unintelligible to ancient readers.
And it is, of course, true, that a creation account written in modern technical jargon would be unintelligible to ancient readers. However, assuming (arguendo) that Darwinism is true, it would be possible to express evolutionary ideas in popular language or picturesque descriptions.
If Gen 2 can describe the creation of the woman from the man, then the narrator could describe the creation of human beings from lower animals. The narrator could use the same basic imagery or process. God creates animals, then God uses that raw material to make the first man and woman (or the first men and women). If Gen 2 can depict God making a woman from the body of a man, then the narrator could also depict God making a man from the body of an animal. That would be theistic evolution, cast in terms understandable to ANE readers.
So “inspired myth” is a solution to a pseudoproblem. It operates on a false assumption regarding what was communicable to ancient readers. Assuming (arguendo) that theistic evolution is actually the way that God made mankind, it would be possible to express that idea in idiomatic terms already available to the narrator (e.g. animation, mediate creation, the imago Dei). It could go something like this:
So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon a beast of the earth, and while it slept took one of its ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the beast he made into a man. Then the Lord God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became the image of God.
So the fact that Gen 1-2 doesn’t give us an evolutionary creation account, even though that would be easy to do, invalidates the argument for revealed mythology.