Just the Right Amount of Literalism?

The quote comes from Melody McConnell on Facebook, when sharing a link to this article by Karl Giberson. I didn’t include her name in the image because I was concerned that it might be misunderstood either that the words in the quotation marks were her view, or that she was actually quoting rather than parodying the young-earth creationist viewpoint.

"Literate: (of a person) able to read and write.***While you are saying that those of ..."

Not Liberal, Just Literate
"Mythicists and religious apologists are indeed identical in this respect. They both appeal to experts ..."

Are the Gospels Anonymous?
"Think about this: The experts, New Testament scholars, believe that the Gospels were NOT written ..."

Are the Gospels Anonymous?

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • TomS

    I hope that the publicity surrounding The Principle will bring this out.

    IMHO, there is stronger basis for literalist interpretation for “the fixity of the Earth” than “the fixity of kinds”. For about 2000 years, no one doubted that the Bible meant that the Earth was fixed; but over that span, no one asserted that the Bible meant that kinds (or species) were fixed. No one ever asserted that the Bible was compatible with heliocentrism except “in the light of modern science”. (OTOH, it may be that no one ever asserted that the Bible was incompatible with “common descent” except from a prior rejection of the modern science.)