In fairness to Ham, when Nye asked what would happen to Christians who didn't believe in literalism, he said they were wrong, but since salvation comes solely through acceptance of Jesus and God's grace, nothing would happen to them.

So Ham's version of creationism doesn't even carry consequences. You can believe it or not, and if you don't, he'll just shake his head and feel sorry for your ignorance.

Unless one is a crank trying to prove that "mainstream scientists" and "liberal theologians" are just a bunch of knaves or fools, while trying to get creationism taught as "the alternative," the question seems to have no real significance.

By the way, I really would be interested in evidence that any of the people I named *didn't* read Genesis literally. Why wouldn't they? They certainly believed it was the word of God, and there was very little of what we'd call "science" before 17th and 18th centuries.

Many millions of Muslims believe so literally in the Qu'ran that they have to learn Arabic to read it, and every word of the Arabic text is true, unalterable, and holy. The arguments you mention could apply just as well to them....