Thank you for your kind words, but I notice you didn't respond in any way to the point I was making, which is that the elite constantly shift between scientific materialism and "indigenous" mysticism based on what they happen to be discussing at the moment.
Just why do you (and so many others) assume that "reason" means that the events in the first eleven chapters of Genesis could not have happened exactly as written? That's not "reason." That is naturalism. Reason tells me that it is ridiculous to inject current physical phenomena into the process of creation (when the phenomena did not themselves exist but were themselves in the process of being created). Reason also tells me it is hypocrisy in the extreme to want to deconstruct Genesis while interpreting such things as the "virgin birth" literally. Funny how none of the theistic evolutionists who love to speculate on "what really happened" during Creation never speculate on how Mary was fertilized or gave birth without fertilization. No sir; that's a "miracle." But Genesis? Couldn't have happened! We all know that such things don't happen, which means they never have! So I suppose virgins give birth and dead people come back to life every day???
You don't know me. I told you that I thought the article was written was interesting. I am not a Genesis expert, nor am I a scientist. Please find someone else's brain to pick.