[Digory]

While “literalism” might be close enough for rough grouping, I’ll note that few evangelicals or even (traditional Christian) fundamentalists hold to absolute literalism. The Chicago Statement on Inerrancy is the widely accepted standard, and it says:

> inerrancy does not refer to a blind literal interpretation, and that "history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth."

Evangelicals do hold that the Deity means what He says, even about creation in Genesis. There’s a potential for fact/faith conflict there, but it’s not really logically necessary.

Which is to say, Dawkins isn’t a terribly reliable guide to what believers believe.