Evolutionists (like Wibble for example recently) says creation"ism" only exists because of bible literalism.
It was shown according to a somewhat contrived hypothetical in that which is reasonably common knowledge at least and therefore true as a study in terms of the astoundingly obvious pertaining to the omission of pedanticisms herein etc, etc.., that when theistic evolutionists, creationists, agnosts and atheists read through Genesis together they generally had the same interpretations in terms of whether they thought the verse was either; basically literal/unequivocal, basically not literal but knew the meaning or finally ambiguous so they are uncertain/disagree/equivocal.
Genesis 2.24. for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (paraphrased)
In this example, theistic evolutionists, creationists, agnosts and atheists all thought the first part of the verse was literal but the second part was not literal. That is to say they all agreed a man will have a literal mother and father and stop residing with them but they did not think a man and wife would literally have the same physical flesh/skin as part of one physical body and thought this part was about union and oneness.
It was also shown to be generally the same, percentage-wise the theistic evolutionists, creationists, agnosts and atheists all basically by majority percentage would take the same scriptures literally, pretty much the same amount of them and the same amount non-literally. It was shown to basically be the same as for creationists. Most were taken literally simply because a historical account talks about literal things such as literal people, real places, real events.
For example in early Genesis when it mentions the river Euphrates and later when it mentions other place names such as the Red Sea, and other place names, theistic evolutionists, creationists, agnosts and atheists all thought the rivers or seas or places were literal geographical locations. Nobody thought for example that in genesis 1, it wasn't a historical account when it gave the names of Adam and his descendants. The context was also the same throughout the bible, there was no reason for example to take the genealogies as anything other than literal, and all groups did.
Conclusion; it's not possible creationists are, "bible literalists" because they took the same things literally as the other groups did and pretty much tallied up as the same, there were really only a few interpetive differences when it came to more ambiguous statements such as the "water above the firmament" which could be shown to be opinion-driven rather than a problem of interpretation because the ambigious, or equivocal nature of some texts is what led to those differences of opinion but largely as a logical statement if you call creationists "bible literalists" you also must call yourself it or you commit a double standard fallacy and are a hypocrite.
FINAL CONCLUSION/INSIGHTS; So first let us explain what this is all about. When evolutionists call creationists "bible literalists" like Wibble for example, really they are using this as a propaganda to try and show that basically there are a few people that take the bible a certain way but by majority people would disagree with them. But in fact what the bible means cannot be decided by majority in terms of what people will testify because if people are forced to sit down and interpret the bible they basically all interpret it the same way even if they SAY they don't. (unless you are saying you do believe Egypt isn't a real place and husbands and wives do become the same physical body? No? I thought not. What about fruit for food? Do you agree when God says He gave fruit for food He means fruit is real food, literally? I assume you know what oranges and apples are, though perhaps I am being overly generous towards your intellectual abilities.)
So then that is the propaganda - to make out we as bible believing creationists are just a small group that take the bible one particular way as a few hold-out crackpots on the fringe and really the bible is a book of jumbled words that can mean anything. This propaganda was proven to be 100% BULLSHIT.
In actual fact any study like this will show people of normal intelligence will usually all take the bible the same way which means logically this proves;
1. The bible really does have only one general message and really all groups generally know what it means, it's just that only a few people believe what it actually means and will admit to what it actually means generally speaking. (creationists) Some semi-honest atheists will admit to the meaning of the bible because they believe evolution-philosophy disproves the bible such as Dawkins.
2. "Bible literalist" is a type of propaganda-epithet used to try and force the issue into an argument decided by majority, to make a minority look stupid or old fashioned or fringe. In fact all groups including creationists only took most of the bible literally the same as the other group because of the reason that with historical accounts a lot of the account will be literal. People will be literal, real people. Places will be real places, etc...events will be reports of real events. That is the style, it is called "historical narrative" and mostly it is what the bible is comprised of.
3. God will not be fooled by people pretending they don't know what His word means for if even mike can uncover your bullshit with a bit of basic Sherlockery what do you think the inventor of metamorphosis will say?
Finally imagine if there was a man called "Rhain".
It was shown all groups of normal intelligence understood the following sentence despite the differences in meaning and the same spelling;
"When it rains on you in life you mustn't let people like rain stop you from raining in life."
All groups knew when it meant the person, when it meant rain and when it meant "reign". It was the same for many other examples, all groups would know the innate meaning of the context.
You've been bull whipped.
"I'm LAUGHING at the so called superior intellect" - Captain Kirk - The Wrath Of Khan.