Creationism - National Center for Science Education

Does it not seem wholly inconsistent that one can be literal at one point and non-literal at another? Not at
all. As seen from the fundamentalist’s point of view, there is nothing wrong in this. On the one hand, he
ties himself not to the ‘literal’ meaning, which would be methodologically controllable, but rather to the
‘plain’ meaning, the meaning which is clearly the right one. But since the principle of inerrancy is the
overriding one in all interpretation, no meanings turn out to be ‘plain’ if they disagree with the inerrancy of
the Bible. The ‘plain’ meaning is the one selected, from among those which might be in conformity with
the inerrancy of the Bible, by various exegetical considerations. [Barr 1981:52]
At one creationist conference I attended, “Bible Bookmarks” were distributed
which spelled out the “Special Rules of Interpretation” in order to define more precisely
this ‘literal where possible’ principle. Namely, assume literal meaning except when
context, other Bible passages, or “common sense” rules this out (Kilgore 1986). The
masthead of creationist Howard Estep’s Prophetic News Letter states the same principle
thus: “Rule of Interpretation: Take the Bible literally where it is at all possible; if
symbolic, figurative, or typical language is used, then look for the literal truth it intends
to convey.”
According to the “Chicago Statement” in Biblical Hermeneutics and Inerrancy of
the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (1983:46), “the meaning expressed in
each biblical text is single, definite and fixed.” The fundamentalist view of the Bible as
consisting of hard, absolute facts with fixed, definite meanings increases the tendency to
opt for as literal an interpretation as possible. “This view of the scriptures as a series of
scientifically accurate propositions has invited the literalist interpretation that allows
biblical language as few ambiguities as possible” (Marsden 1983:572).
All fundamentalists readily admit that some Bible passages should be interpreted
symbolically (figuratively or poetically) rather than literally. There is, however,
considerable disagreement on which passages these include. An example of particular
relevance to Bible-science are passages which reflect a geocentric view of the sun. Most
modern Bible-scientists feel no urge to try to interpret these literally, and say that the
Bible is here using “phenomenological” language—description of how things appear
rather than what we know to be true. Most creationists would be embarrassed by the
insistence that these passages also be interpreted literally. Yet some modern creationists
(see later) do indeed insist that these passages must be interpreted literally, as they bear
no signs of symbolic or figurative intent, but are stated as “plain” statements of literal
fact. These same Bible-scientists, who insist on geocentrism in addition to young-earth
creationism, however, will readily admit that other Bible passages are intended to be
interpreted symbolically or figuratively.
Belief in biblical inerrancy is the defining characteristic of fundamentalists. It
was officially enshrined as the first of the “Five Points” of fundamentalism in the
declaration adopted by the Presbyterian General Assembly in 1910 which defined the
core, absolutely essential doctrines of faith. (The other points were Christ’s virgin birth,
substitutionary atonement, and bodily resurrection, and the authenticity of supernatural
miracles. Inerrancy of course subsumes these other points, and thus it can be argued that
inerrancy is the general principle from which the other points necessarily follow.
Subsequent fundamentalist five-point creedal statements by other organizations
substituted Christ’s imminent pre-millennial return for the fifth point, but inerrancy
remained the first, overriding principle.)
The “Statements of Belief” or creedal foundations of various creationist and
Bible-science organizations all begin by affirming that the Bible is inerrant. They also of