In reference to the comments on this article, it really is quite a sad day when creationism is reduced to the single "6500 years" theory by those who beg for pe

In reference to the comments on this article, it really is quite a sad day when creationism is reduced to the single "6500 years" theory by those who beg for people to have a more comprehensive approach to the subject (Read: those on the "side of science".) It's somewhat of a double-standard critique. Can we all agree that there are a massive number of views on this, and the range between the views is quite a bit closer to continuous than absolute? For instance, there are those of us creationists who believe in the story of creation as somewhat allegorical, a cultural way of explaining a complex series of events that originated from an intelligent design, possibly including a singularity, evolution, and whatever else might be considered the "anti-creationist" view.