The minute someone claims to believe a factual reading of the creation account, they are slapped with the *Six day, 6,000 year old earth, flat earth, geocentric solar system, pi=3, Bible literalist* label. But you knew that. You’ve been around these threads long enough and you have decent reading comprehension.
We are the ones constantly reminding you that we do know how to interpret Scripture and that we don’t take the whole Bible literally, but it falls on deaf ears.
So, back to the question about how to interpret DARWIN’s works since we were told that he wrote some stuff metaphorically,
“How do you know if the parts that you think are literal aren’t metaphor after all? If you’re going to take some parts literally, then you have to take all of what he said literally and if you’re going to take some parts metaphorically, then you have to take it all metaphorically.”
And how do you make that determination as to which parts are meant to be taken metaphorically and which parts are to be taken literally?
That’s not my question to answer, it’s the question for the Darwinists to answer. It’s their work that they use to support their point of view.
I've read them long enough to know it's a serious mischaracterization to say that everyone who believes the Theory of Evolution does this to anyone who claims to belive a factual reading of the creation account.