The thing I take issue with about the term *Bible literalist* is that it is used to discredit anyone who takes the creation account literally. There's a big difference between taking a narrative account, that's clearly written as a narrative account, literally and taking the whole Bible literally. Taking the accounts literally does not automatically demand that all of it be taken litearlly.
When the Bible states that *He said* or *They went* or other terms used to show action, there is no precedent for reading it as an allegory. Yes, there are allegories, along with metaphors, analogies, parables, etc.; but recognising the difference between them and reading them as such also does not mean that none of the Bible should be taken literally or that the Bible is therefore untrue. Or that the person doing so is hypocritical or being unfaithful to what they believe.
Personally, I am uncommitted as to the age of the earth. It may be about 6,000 years old; it may be not. There are factors mentioned in Scripture that would muck up the dating methods we depend on that could render them unreliable as far as I can see. I am aware of the history of the dating of the age of the earth by Ussher and that is why I am hesitant to accept it. The age of the earth was derived using Scripture by a man but is nowhere stated IN Scripture. If it was, that'd be a whole different matter. I hesitate to accept as truth something calculated by a person.
(Or the homo fact of being sinful)