I personally believe that God is directly involved in the movement of every subatomic particle, and that an infinite God has no need to diminish his attention to what we humans see as great matters in order to supervise small ones.
I didn’t realize you were such a closet Calvinist!
It’s funny, but I think you’re view on literalism in Genesis 1 is in one respect more conservative than mine! I think theistic evolution is fully compatible with a literal reading of the text, and you don’t. You could even deny that any of the events happened and treat it as a complete fiction while taking it literally. Taking it literally is just a matter of reading the story in a way that the words it uses speak, in the story, of the things those words seem to speak of. Literalism contrasts not with those who take the story to be a useful fiction but with metaphor. Jesus never claimed to be a plant, so when he says he’s the vine he isn’t speaking literally. But the tree of knowledge of good and evil functions in the story as a literal tree, even if some people who accept that won’t consider there ever to have been such a tree in history. The days function in the framework of the semi-poetic narrative as days, even if they don’t represent 24-hour periods of time in reality.
I have a soft spot for Sailhamer. I really enjoyed his Genesis commentary when I was looking through a number of them on several passages. I’ve later concluded that he’s wrong on Genesis 6. He takes the sons of God to be the faithful Sethites and the daughters of men to be the unfaithful Cainites. At the time, I was convinced, though, even with all the other commentaries I looked at arguing for alternative views. I’m greatly looking forward to his Numbers for WBC, which I keep hearing is about to come out, but it doesn’t seem to be happening yet.