Why should the account of Creation given by the unknown author of Genesis I be regarded as the correct one ?

1. The author of Genesis isn't unknown...Moses wrote Genesis.

2. There isn't a single eye-witness to the origins of species or universe, so whatever anyone chooses to believe is an act of faith, the difference is merely in who or what they place that faith, but all lack the same eye-witnesses for their claims.

If you believe that the Bible is the word of God, then it would be bizarre to presume that parts of it are blatantly wrong or deceptive, especially given what we know about God and the Bible and the religion as a whole.

Whoever authored what we call Genesis, therefore, would be irrelevant. Were all traces of the Bible to be destroyed and then rewritten/retold by an atheist, faith in the divinity of the Bible and of God's power and determination to maintain his Word on Earth for humanity is enough evidence that even under such circumstances, the story of creation (and anything else in the Bible) would either require that it be true or else would, obviously (given the faith) incorporate whatever God believes is necessary for us to know about such matters, from either a literal or metaphorical point of view. Or both.

If you do not believe that the Bible is in any way Holy, then there is no real reason to believe in the Biblical creation myth.

They think the hodge-podge they hear that's a mix of the two creation myths in Genesis are 'correct'. And they think that b/c either they know of no others and/or its been hounded into their head. And/Or they haven't actually read the two stories.

The one I like the best was some Chinese version where the earth and chaos were in a golden egg and when it split, the earth came out and chaos settled all around. Then some giant comes out of a cave and separates the earth from the sky...pretty imagery.

But no reason to think any of those stories are true...some scientists have observed certain phenomena that points to there being a Big Bang-that's what we can observe-but there never has been a deity to tell us the specifics.

@ your worst nightmare-b/c it's contradictory and has errors. skepticsannotatedbible.com

It should not be seen as physically and historically correct, for that is not its aim. The creation story aims to tell us what our purpose is: to be with God. In that regard, spiritually, it is correct. Some Jews did not believe the early stories in Genesis were historically accurate, such as the story of creation, Noah, and the Tower of Babel. These stories were written to convey a spiritual truth.

If you're going to follow the book, you have to assume that Genesis 1 or Genesis 2 is the accurate version. We've got no way of proving either correct, so it makes no difference. Anyone who accepts the Bible as factual obviously has no interest in truth, so guessing is as valid as any other way.

Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Tesament, including Genesis. Why shouldn't it be regarded as the correct one ?

Yvonne said it best... "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16

Why indeed?

read more of value in theosophy such as the Secret Doctrine dated 1888AD (H.P. B.)

It's just as valid as any account proposed by man.

It shouldn't. It should be critically examined and if found conflicting with observable evidence then it should be discarded as nothing more than fiction written by men attempting to explain the world around them.

Which is exactly what it has been shown to be.