Like Bluejay I'm forced to conclude that almost every one of these points is either false or misleading.
Belief in an infallible and inerrant Bible actually allows for the acceptance of biological evolution and common ancestry.
I don't think it does; at least, an inerrant Bible contradicts our model of biological evolution
as it actually happened. Genesis has plants emerging
before the existence of the Sun; suffice to say, it didn't happen that way.
The anti-evolution creationist explanation of microevolution is genetically impossible.
Well, that's true, at least.
18th century creationists rejected the possibility of the world's sedimentary rocks being remnant global flood sediments. It is actually biblically impossible.
"Biblically impossible"? What on Earth does that mean?
He claims that a literal interpretation of the Bible based upon biblical inerrancy and infallibility actually conforms to all discoveries made in science, especially biological evolution.
Only, I assume, by an incredible amount of backbending, tortured readings of the plain meaning of the Bible. Reading the Bible in its plain meaning, biological evolution can't be reconciled with the text of the Bible. There's just no way. Even as a metaphor, the order in Genesis - both of them - is all wrong.
™ Version 4.2