I don't know what he is going for here. I suppose he wants to show that a literal interpretation is an even more difficult standpoint to argue, and then he expects to win the debate in an "aha!" moment, showing the bible is undoubtedly scientific. But how could you even describe a non-literal interpretation of anything as "scientific"? I take it he means reconcilable with science, but still, if you accept a non-literal interpretation you could potentially twist the text to mean whatever you want. It could be an interpretation reconcilable with science, but it wouldn't be a valid interpretation. I get the sense the guy thinks he has a trump card which is going to stop any argument in its tracks, but will probably be some embarrassing fallacy. And what's with the obsession with literal interpretations of the bible? I get the impression this is a particularly American thing; what has made people so defensive of the occurrence of magical tales in a book of morals?