The account in Genesis, while some try to read in an interpretive manner, actually is not written in an interpretive style. It points out what God did as a fact. It is conspiracy thinking to view it any other way.
"God conspired to deceive us"?
Historians and the concept of writing down events was not just a deceptive invention, and scientific theory does not resolve the issue. People will always "see" and believe what they choose.
I am not even claiming the Bible was written by historians. Any one can write down or pass on their experiences. Up until the "scientific method" most just took it for granted that God preserved what made it into the Bible. I doubt science has replaced God, but it has replaced the need for humans to accept God.
In my opinion all other myths just try to interpret in human imagination form what happened. No one was around when it happened so no human observed or experienced what happened. God is lying or some human re-wrote the facts. God does not exist and some human came up with a believable account that lasted for thousands of years. An account that does not contradict science other than "God did not do it".
Matter can exist without light, and time does not depend on light. A day equals the amount of motion the earth does in one rotation. A year represents the orbit of the earth around the closest star. The zodiac is the progress of the solar system as it moves through the galaxy. If there was no interaction between light and matter or no light at all, the universe would be dead.
There is no scientific fact that states light is necessary for matter to exist. Even water can exist without light. I do not understand why we get hung up on the notion that all the matter in the universe did not pre-exist before light. The universe was not formed in a single point of explosion. The motion of the universe started when light re-acted with matter at the same time throughout the universe and the universe has been expanding since that point in time.
In my opinion any other account is just human imagination attemping to write God out of the account. Or the development of human understanding was not able to grasp the fullness of what happened. I suppose the same can be said for Genesis, but I have yet to see an argument against it, other than modern creationist just don't get it. "We" are not supposed to take things humans write down as literal. With that argument, we should not take any human observation as literal. We have fallen into the trap, that if enough people believe something, it is the truth. The "scientific method" is not supposed to give us the truth, but guides us in making informed observations that may change with time.