Original Intent Of the Bible

Does anyone else out there believe, like me, that the Bible was never intended to be taken literally?
( I guess if you believe that God wrote part of the Bible then it MUST be intended to be taken literally....anyway...)
I'm not a Christian - I study molecular biology and evolutionary genetics - so, yes, you could say that I am biased.
Anyway, I think that the Bible is a collection of stories, teaching people about values and ideals....but nothing more. The lessons it teaches are valuble to millions of people around the world, but surely you can't seriously try and use it like a text book? Why even try?
I mean I've read Aesop's fable about the hare and the tortoise. I learnt that consistency often pays off. But I don't then believe that hares and tortoises can speak or that they could organise a race. I don't go and try to formulate scientific arguments in support of my hare and tortoise racing theory.
It was a story, written to convey a message about life to the reader and not a factual account of a real race.
I guess my point to creationists is - stop trying to mix science with religion and faith. They don't mix and never will. I don't do my research to disproove God. I couldn't if I tried I guess. But stop bombarding scientists with these accusations, pointless questions and stop misquoting scientists to further your cause. Let us do our research.

Firstly - I'm sorry that this topic isn't much about evolution so far. I'm not quite sure how I managed to post it in this section....but evolution is what I'm interested in....
I never assume all creationists to be naieve. I'm sure there are some quite well educated people among them.
One thing no creationist has ever been able to explain to me about the whole flood thing though is:
Why do some sedimentary layers contain footprints of animals?
If all sedimentary layers were laid down as the flood waters receeded how is it that we have hundreds of examples of dinosaur, homonid and bird trackways preserved in stone? I'm not just talking about ones that are on the surface at the moment - but ones like those recently discovered here in Australia, which are buried with later sedimentary layers on top of them. Were animals walking around on the bottom of the ocean in between layers being deposited by the flood? Did the flood waters drain, allowing the animals to walk on the mud, and then suddenly reappear to lay down the later layers? (This is all ignoring the fact to that each layer would have to have turned to stone before the next one was laid down). Any explanations?

The flood stuff is just too much for me....I really can't see the logic in trying to scientifically proove a folk tale. I mean really.
Also, I can never understand the creationist term "kind".
"Kind" can conveniently be used to make Noah's ark more plausible (well not really) by saying that only one "kind" of each animal was required and so he didn't have to fit thousands and thousands or organisms on board.
However, if a definition of "kind" is ever asked for, you get met with silence.
Why can animals freely change into multiple forms within a "kind" and yet automatically halt before they become a new species? One "kind" of dog ancestor can change into all the "kinds" of dog on the planet but can't change into a different species??
You can't pick and choose little bits of theories to suit your ideas - in for a penny in for a pound. You can't say "well, mutations leading to genotypic and phenotypic change can occur to an animal....oh unless of course they lead to a new species forming....that can't happen!".
WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF "KIND"????

kind 1 [knd ] (comparative kinder,
superlative kindest) adjective1. compassionate: having a generous,
warm, compassionate nature
2. generous: showing generosity or
compassion
3. agreeable or safe: not harsh, unpleasant,
or likely to have destructive effects a
detergent that is kind to the environment
4. caring: showing courtesy or caring about
somebody (formal) my kindest regards to
your family
5. loving: full of love (archaic)
6. Creationist buzz word. Has no relevant meanining in biology.
Ambiguous, unclear meaning when applied to scientific argument.

I'm a newbie to this site, but I've been studying molecular biology for 4 years and never come across this "baramin" stuff. At the risk of sounding like an idiot could someone explain it to me? Never heard of it before.