The discussion rages on at Mike Macon’s blog, to which Andrew provide a link in his first comment. Attention is focused not on the creation narratives but on inerrancy and Andrew’s Principle 2 of an emerging Biblical hermeneutic: "Let’s pretend it’s not inerrant." Mike says this:

The story of the Bible is irrelevant if it can’t be trusted. And if it’s not inerrant, it’s errant. If it’s errant, it contains errors. If it contains errors, it cannot be trusted. The syllogism is complete and inescapable.

To which Andrew replies:

Your syllogism (which is not actually a syllogism) doesn’t help us.
I find that I trust all sorts of imperfect authorities - historians,
doctors, journalists, lawyers. Things don’t have to be absolutely
inerrant in order to be trusted - that’s simply not true. I have a very
high confidence in the truthfulness of scripture, but I do not find
that it is in anyway helped by the a priori and frankly unfounded
assertion that the Bible must be completely true in every detail.

Mike parries thusly:

I am not trusting in lawyers, or doctors, or salesmen, or my Aunt Ruth,
or Mickey Mouse, or anything else that is obviously errant for
something as vital as my eternal salvation.

Then after a bit of semi-tangential wrangling Andrew says:

I’ll wait for the evidence that the Bible claims to be absolutely inerrant… my trust is not in the supposed perfection of a text but in
the God who is revealed through the testimony of the text, through the
historical experience of the community, through the presence of the
Spirit in my life and in the life of the church, and so on. Is any of
that absolutely reliable? No. That is why it is called faith.

Mike again:

if it’s not absolutely reliable, then there’s an element of
unreliability to it. If there’s an element of unreliability to it, you
can’t completely rely on it. If you can’t completely rely on it, you
can’t trust it - you could be wrong, you could be fooling yourself - you could in fact not be saved.