In essence, the authors are saying that God, via Moses (or perhaps Moses on his own initiative), presented a fanciful account of the mechanics of creation, based on Egyptian mythology, simply because the Hebrews were too dumb to understand even a rudimentary but still accurate description of such events. Yet, this was done so as to teach them "accurate" theology about the true god, Elohim. The authors note that "we are not saying that Genesis 1 is untrue" (p. 156). They're just saying it's inaccurate. They say that Moses had the right intent on what he spoke, even though he misled people as to the true mechanics of creation. He had good intent, but his information was wrong. Could one say that Job did the same thing when he described in detail the majesty of God? The authors do this by claiming erroneously that everything revolves around how the Hebrews would have understood things. The authors use this cultural-dominance argument to then impose their own interpretation of science onto the Genesis text. What is so amusing about this approach is that it is in large measure the very thing they accuse "young-earth" theorists of doing. Moreover, they hold to "progressive revelation" (p 148), but tend to assume this means that newer revelation supersedes previous revelation. Thus, revelation is "evolutionary" and we can do away with things in the Old Testament, an argument that antinomians and even many dispensationalists would love. Of course, to make matters worse one could claim to give "new revelation" today that would supersede what the New Testament says. This cycle could be endless. A point the authors make early on is the notion that we should all just get along. The "old-earth" and "young-earth" theorists should just agree to disagree. Nevertheless, they then state that the "stakes are very high" in this debate (p. 23). Why if it is just a matter of a mere disagreement? The reason for this is simple: they wish to maintain fellowship with the "young-earth" group that they perceive hold the reigns of power in Evangelical Christian institutions. This is a common insurgency tactic by those in a small minority. However, one wonders if they will have such a generous spirit if they were to become the dominant majority. Speaking to this issue, J.Gresham Machen in his book "Christianity and Liberalism" notes that Christian institutions are voluntary associations. Those who do not agree with the principles of such voluntary associations should leave and cling to other groups or form their own. In other words, they should cease their insurgency tactics and be open and honest about what they truly believe and how they want to impose that on others. What the authors want is the fellowship of Evangelical associations, but not to accept the interpretations of Scripture connected to such associations. In many ways the authors share much in common with the early church father Origen regarding creation. Origen viewed the days of creation as figurative as well, while also saying that almost everything else in the creation account was figurative. Why did Origen do this? Because he could not believe that rational minds would accept such notions as the tree of knowledge of good and evil, or God walking in the garden with Adam. In other words, Origen wanted to have a theology that would be respectable in secular philosophical circles in Alexandria while still maintaining fellowship with the Christians. Origen's physical courage for the faith is not in dispute; he was persecuted and tortured more than once. But one must wonder about his moral courage. Perhaps it was much more difficult to endure the mockery of the learned men of Alexandria than it was to endure the hot brands of Emperor Decius' soldiers. The authors are in the same predicament. They want the praises of men in scientific symposiums and conferences. They want these men to speak well and highly of them, and not endure mockery and ostracism because they transgress the god of "science." Ultimately, they want the honor of men rather than of God.