I at least partially understand the push for a literal interpretation of the bible. Brand Identity, to commercialize it. Already, there's way too many competing sects of Christianity, sending out a similar message, offering similar services, and the entire schism comes from disagreements in the interpretation of the Bible. So, if we require a strict literalist view, we can bring all these various churches back into one Great Faith. I don't know if anyone consiously thinks this way, but it's the emergent behavior. Strict literalism cuts down on controversial thought.
But considering the source material, strict literalism requires a degree of Orwellian Doublethink that literally boggles the mind. It also has hideous unintended consequences.
To paraphrase from Dogma, to accept that the original texts of the Bible were created with divine inspiration, that's an act of faith. To believe that in the countless translations and transliterations, that the entire message was preserved in its original form, that's just plain gullibility.
Ironically, the entire Creationist movement hinges upon one questionable translation. In the original Hebrew, Genesis uses the word yom, which, in convential usage translates into "day". However, an equally acceptable, if somewhat more poetic usage, translates to "span of time", or "epoch". Considering the nature of the Bible, would we accept the common usage translation, or the more formal, poetic one?
Strict literalism also poses some interesting problems beyond that. For example, Cain and Abel take wives. Now, no other women were mentioned in the bible, which fundies explain in a variety of ways, but there's one problem with that- they're going outside of the source material, and hence, are not adhering to a strict literalist interpretation. Noah's ark poses a similar problem, with an internal volume of roughly 12150000 cubic feet, we are supposed to accept that every species on Earth, including, as the article that started this rant claims, dinosaurs, fit in there, with enough food to last for forty days and nights? No miraculous intervention is mentioned, so, in a strict literalist interpretation, we must assume that there is no physical prohibition on this, and that anyone so inclined could replicate the event.
It takes such a force of will to accept this strict literalism, and such a complete and forceful rejection of common sense, that I find that degree of faith unpalatable. I appreciate the value of faith in one's life, even if I, myself, am fairly faithless. But faith should be informed, and our knowledge of the world should impact one's faith.
Another way to express this question is as follows: "Does it fucking matter?" If you accepted that a single diety created everything, is it any more or less miraculous to have it done in seven days or seven geological epochs? Is this going to have any impact on how you live your life, or interact with that creation?