Rabbi David Willig:
"But to argue against the evolutionary process completely on the basis of the literal meaning of the bible is to argue.."
Actually if you follow the pattern of Creation in Breisheet, it starts from the most simple (grass) and ends with the most complex (woman :-) - which really does parallel Darwin as I understand it.
I also find dinosaurs in "taninim g'dolim"
So w/o working hard on apologetics, the Humash narrative matches the general scientific view in several ways.
And I think the Torah WAS being general.
So Rabbi Willigs suggestion of taking Torah seriously - but not literally - can be quite informative. You need some flexibility and to ignore dogmatists on both sides of the debate.
We also know from the Torah text that literal 24 hour days make no sense for days 1-4 when the Sun and Moon were first created. Again not apologetics, just simple analysis within the text.
So a fundamental read of the text cannot really match what PASSES for a fundamental read anyway.
If a were teaching a Martian - I would say that Darwin was being technical and the Torah more poetic - but both were describing the same events. More a gap in style than in substance.
Even our 9th grade science teacher in Yeshiva Day School - a secular Jew - taught us classic evolution with the possibility that God was pulling the strings. I think most of us students were quite comfortable with that perspective. AFAIK None of us felt that it threatened our belief in Humash