Anyone hoping to defend a non-literal interpretation of the first 11 chapters of Genesis faces an uphill battle I certainly don't envy. Everywhere else in the Bible treats the Genesis account of origins as it should be treated. It is a historical narrative that accurately details the origins of the heavens, the earth, and everything therein.
This includes man, specifically Adam and Eve, who were created on the 6th day (Genesis 1:26-31). These are two of only three people (Jesus being the third) in all of history who ever came into existence without a human mother and a human father. Eve was created from Adam's ribs (Genesis 2:21-25), and Adam himself was created from the dirt, with God Himself breathing life into him through his nostrils (Genesis 2:7). It is in this sense that Adam is called the son of God, not the son of a monkey.
There are a variety of responses compromising Christians can come up with depending on their particular view. Some of them don't believe Adam was literal at all, and it's just that humanity was specifically selected out of our ancestors to have a special relationship with God. Luke doesn't like this idea at all, as He traces Joseph's genealogy from his quite literal father, Heli, all the way down to Adam, whom he calls "son of God". It seems extremely odd, if Adam is not intended to be a literal historical figure, for him to be included in this lineage of otherwise completely literal figures.
Others believe Adam was the first true man, but to those people I ask what were his parents if they were not also human? Both Biblically and scientifically, animals only reproduce according to their own kinds. As previously noted, only three human beings in history have ever been seen to have arisen without pre-existing human parents. If we believe Adam and Eve were born, why should we believe they were born from non-humans?
Then there are those who believe Adam and Eve were quite literal people, quite literally created by God, but after millions of years of death and destruction. Luke's genealogy does not specifically answer this view, but again, the rest of the Bible does. Genesis 1 clearly tells us that man was created on day 6, meaning the earth is a maximum of 5 days, 23 hours older than Adam. That gives no time for dinosaurs to dominate the earth for 175 million years before a massive meteor decides "grr, I hate them dang lizards, but I love butterflies". Jesus also affirmed this when He said that God made them male and female from the beginning, (Mark 10:6) and that this is why marriage exists.
In other words, the only logical interpretation is that all of the views discussed above are wrong. Adam was a real person, made directly by God rather than being born to an ape man, and he is around 152 - 143 hours younger than the earth. To say otherwise is akin to saying my great great great grandfather is really just a representative of all English men. It's far easier to just take the Bible as it is written than to try to find a million crazy ways to fit the atheistic creation myth into the Bible.