As for Genesis drawing from Babylonian mythology, the liberals happen to be right about that.  However, as uncomfortable as this makes some conservatives (like ourselves), once it's properly understood, it really doesn't compromise us at all, nor does it imply what the liberals think it does.  For example, Pius XII admits the fact that Genesis draws from "pan-Semitic" (Babylonian) mythology (WAY back in the Tridentine days when he writes …

So, there we have it in a nutshell, and Pius XII advocates the kind of "balance" between literalism and modernism; namely, Genesis describes actual historical events using non-historical ("mythic") language.  And for the simple reason that it describes a time, and a human condition, which we, in this present, fallen world, cannot begin to literally understand or imagine.  What, for example, is it really like for man to live in perfect communion with God???  We cannot understand or imagine such a state literally because, as St. Paul says, "eye has not seen".  It is simply beyond our present human experience.  Thus, Genesis uses mythic imagery (a "Garden") – a image taken from the pre-existing Semitic culture of the Hebrews themselves.

Indeed, the issue of Genesis drawing from Babylonian (pan-Semitic) mythic narratives is one of those cases where we have to meet the liberal challenge head on, rather than avoiding it like the Fundamentalists do.  And, if we do this (that is, meet it head-on), we will STILL emerge victorious insofar that the truth of this matter supports the Catholic position and reveals a deep, and very comfortable, appreciation of the Genesis narratives and their authentic Divine inspiration in the context of our sacred history.

And this brings us to the crux of the matter, which is simply the fact that Abraham himself was a Babylonian! – an aspect which most Fundamentalists fail to take into consideration.  But, Genesis clearly says that Abraham's family were natives of "Ur of the Chaldeans" – that is, southern Mesopotamia.  In other words, they belonged to the Amonite/Akkadian (Semitic) racial group that made up the Babylonians; and despite how some modern Christians like to think that the Hebrews/Israelites/Jews were somehow "distinct" from all their Semitic (pagan) neighbors, a careful reading of the OT reveals that this was not the case at all.  Rather, Abraham and his descendents both came from a pagan-Semitic culture, and continued to interact and borrow ideas from the pagan-Semitic cultures around them.

Thus, in all likelihood, not only was Genesis influenced by the Jews' captivity in Babylon (after the collapse of the Jewish kingdom), but the Jews' own oral traditions had common origins with those of the Babylonians, since they were ethnically and culturally the same people anyway!  So, there is nothing to be afraid of, and we should not make the mistake of trying to make the Hebrews/Israelites/Jews into non-Semites or try to divorce them from the pan-Semitic culture to which Israel belonged.  Rather, the genius of Israel (which was of course the inspiration of Almighty God) was in its ability to take forms and concepts which were native to the entire pan-Semitic culture (Babylon being the de facto "parent culture" for all Semitic peoples) and use them to express Divine truths that were revealed to the Israelites alone.

Thus, when Genesis 1 mirrors the conquests of the Babylonian god Marduk in the Enuma Elisha (i.e. Marduk, making himself the principal god, subjugates all the other gods by defeating them in battle on Six consecutive days and the gods which he fights and subdues on each of these Six Days are the gods of the things which the God of Israel creates of each of these **same** Six Days), what we're seeing there is a brilliant (and completely intentional) move on the part of the sacred author of Genesis.  First, what has to be appreciated is that ancient Semites (indeed all ancient peoples) used mythology to convey what, today, we'd call scientific truth – in this case, the make-up and classification of the Cosmos in all its elements (which are the "gods" that Marduk fights on the six consecutive days).  So, what the author of Genesis is saying to the Babylonians is: "Hey, you guys are brilliant scientists, and we accept your cosmology (the best cosmology of the day).  But, you know what?  You may be brilliant scientists, but you're lousy theologians.  These elements of creation are not 'gods', but mere creatures.  And, it wasn't Marduk, your state-god, who conquered them (so as to gain control of the universe and bring order out of chaos).  Rather, it was our God, the only God, Who created them out of nothingness."

And thus, the narrative of Genesis 1 is born – not from a cultural vacuum, but from pre-existing material that was known to every ancient Semite, and which could be understood by them.  Indeed, this also, needless to say, explains how we Catholics can say that Genesis 1 is inspired while, at the same time, denying the cosmology it presents (e.g. a stationary earth; the sun, moon and starts positioned below the sky, etc.) in favor of the Copernican cosmology which all modern people subscribe to (i.e., the earth moves around the sun, etc.).  In essence, we recognize that Genesis 1 uses a pre-existing (Babylonian) cosmology – the cosmology known to people of that time; and we are not bound to that cosmology, since it is incidental to the Genesis narrative itself; that is to say, God, in His mercy, revealed Himself as Creator to people who did not have a proper scientific understanding of the Cosmos and so He allowed His inspired writer to use the cosmology that was known and genuinely accepted – a cosmology which had its form and origin in Babylonian mythic literature.  And, again, we have nothing to fear by admitting this because it reveals the fullness of truth.  Rather, it is the Fundamentalist approach that leads us astray and makes us less than "the pillar and foundation of truth."

There's no contradiction, assuming that one knows how to approach Genesis and appreciation Creationism properly.  I myself am a Creationist, but not a wacko Fundie Creationist.  I recognize the reality of Darwinian natural selection, etc.  Yet, at the same time, I do not (for scientific reasons as well as theological ones) believe that natural selection brought about the "evolution" of man.  But, with that said, I also don't go around trying to argue that man was literally created from mud. :-) Because I understand the nature of the Genesis narrative, and that's not what the Genesis narrative is saying – that is, Genesis is not presenting a scientific position.  Rather, if you were to ask me how human beings came to be on this planet, the only scientific answer that I, or anyone, could honestly give you is: We simply do not know.  Rather, scientifically speaking, man appears in this world under mysterious circumstances, and Genesis does not give us a scientific account of how man came into being, but only a "mythic" account – that is an allegorical / theological teaching using mythic language.  But, what Genesis does reveal to us (which is the opposite of Darwinian mythology, and yes, the Darwinians have their myth too – e.g. the famous illustration of the "Ascent of Man" showing man slowly walking erect – a MYTHIC image!) is that man started out, not as a lesser creature than he is today (i.e., an ape), but as a HIGHER creature than he is today.  But, how and why this is the case is utterly mysterious to us from a scientific / historically-literal point of view.  We simply do not know how the Fall came about or what were the scientific / historically-literal events that accompanied it.  But, we know, per Divine revelation and the Church's constant teaching (e.g. the teaching of Pope Pius above) that man DID fall from a higher state and that this is a historical fact.  So, again, the "trick" for a Catholic is to pursue balance.