Oh yes, absolutely similar but I’d maybe change it to a form of projection. I come from these people, right? Like hardcore evangelicalism complete with people who spoke in tongues and prophesied, all the crazy stuff. You gain a pretty unique perspective when you break yourself free from that hot garbage.
So I can let you in on the “projection” secret. Permit me some generalization, this like any issue is complex but if you push a believer of this stuff on what motivations they think modern science has for reinforcing the idea of evolution or saying the flood was impossible, and it’s practically universal, that they believe the world is trying to justify a reality where their sin can exist.
To me it’s rather clear, they’re trying to justify their existence and not the other way around. You can arrive there logically pretty easily. The real wedge issues that no one talks about are their views on divinity, Jesus must be God incarnate and he must be apart of a trinity. The problem is these concepts didn’t exist as they do today until around 700AD. Trinitarism was invented to usurp a competing religion’s dualism (is that what 2 gods is?) and is never mentioned in any of the texts.
These are the issues that kept them separate from the aforementioned Deists in the 1700s, it keeps them distant from various sects of Christianity like Mormonism or Jehovah Witnesses. It keeps them in conflict with Islam, which believes all of the same exact things (including a virgin birth) except that they have a replacement holy book with their own rules.
Arguing for literal interpretations of Genesis when even most highly religious Jews don’t and the scientific evidence is about on par as a round earth, to me at least, is clear projection and insecurity.
My advice to them? Let Jesus be Jesus. If you worship him, then that should be a no-brainer. Assuming you know it all, about what you call a deity, might be hubris. Might.
Edit: Essentially what I’m saying is they need for it to be literal because they need to support their own dogmatic theology. They completely ignore that the text was to reinforce an oral religion, not a written down one and completely refuse to consider errors even though there are some pretty glaring and obvious ones (see header note:The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11) .