Just the Right Amount of Literalism?

Just the Right Amount of Literalism? April 13, 2014

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.

"Oh, pardon me, I thought you were trying to make a serious point about the ..."

Not Liberal, Just Literate
"I made the initial point that climate science, serious climate science, was still a young ..."

Not Liberal, Just Literate
"What an odd comparison.It's probably fair to say that medicine was not a mature science ..."

Not Liberal, Just Literate
"I despise this kind of game-mastering, which sacrifices verisimilitude and enjoyment to pedantry and book-keeping.Reminds ..."

Sci-Fi, Superhero, Game, and Cinematic #CFP ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
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.)