No. It's straight forward history supported by all contemporary historians and the weight of writings throughout history. The idea of a historical conflict between science and religion is something you only ever find lay people arguing about. It's a modern myth that the academic community recognizes as a myth.
I never claimed to be providing the details. Just the important facts.
Yes, it is.
Again...see Origen and the early church fathers who wrote some 1600+ years ago. Medieval theology also stressed symbolic readings as does Judaism (read the Talmud for example), and virtually every theologian of note (Aquinas, Augustine, Calvin, Wesley, etc.)
This is one of those contemporary myths people who don't know any better fall for. Here's a challenge: name the pope and quote him.
You won't be able to because this is another of those myths. In fact if you dig deep enough to find out what the popes actually said on this topic you will find the exact opposite of what you currently think you will find. You will find statements from Pope Leo XIII reaching back to St. Augustine and affirming that there can be no conflict between science and religion and that when we are able to scientifically prove something as true, we must re-examine our theology to incorporate this new knowledge.
Both of these statements are incorrect and misinformed. Literal readings of Genesis are about 100 years old.
Again, another myth you seem to have fallen for, hook, line, and sinker.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-misunderstood-historical-event
Wrong again. These have only been problematic to Fundamentalist Christians, a sect that exists primarily in the southern USA and only in the last 100 years or so. Like previously mentioned, CS Lewis was able to talk about evolution in his incredibly popular work Mere Christianity with the clear assumption that talking about evolution as a fact was non-controversial. Why? Because even though he was writing in the 1940s, he was writing to an English audience and Fundamentalism is a regional (Southern USA) institution.
You are the one attempting to re-write history.
Well, to be fair, it's not really you who are attempting to re-write it, but rather you fell for an already re-written account of history that is filled with myths. Yes, it's disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, and counterfactual to re-write history in that way. Therefore, I encourage you to brush up on your history. Any introductory book to Church History should do; or any good book on the Enlightenment.