Turns out slacktivist and I share a pet peeve:
I want to mention a pet peeve of mine — a phrase frequently employed by Al Mohler and other proponents of creation-ism. It’s a phrase that bothers me as a lover of the Bible and of stories and of words.
That phrase is “the creation account” or “the creation account in Genesis.”
The book of Genesis offers no such account. It provides a creation story — more than one, in fact, the first 11 chapters are nothing but origin stories. But it most decidedly does not provide an account of creation.
An account is testimony, witnesses telling what they have seen. …
When I point this out — that the story in Genesis 1 is not an “account” — the creation-ists get upset with me, as though I were attacking the book of Genesis. But I’m not attacking it, I’m defending it. Genesis 1 does not itself claim to be an account. It does not present itself as such and it does not willingly comply with those who would treat it as such. To read the story as it is, in the way that it presents itself, cannot be an attack. It’s far more hostile to the text to declare, with no basis from the text itself, that it must be read as something it does not and cannot claim to be.
Alas that even some people who aren’t creationists, people who reject creationism for many good reasons, nonetheless make this same error.