Abstract
Carol Hill has written some good articles on Genesis. I regard her "A Time and Place for Noah" as one of the best articles about origins ever to be printed in this journal. Her most recent paper, "A Third Alternative to Concordism and Divine Accommodation: The Worldview Approach," (PSCF 59, no. 2 [2007]: 129-34) is a good contribution to the dialogue but is in need of some correction. She repeatedly presented Divine Accommodation in that article as the accommodation of myth. This characterization of Accommodation needs to be corrected. One of the main things accommodated in the Bible is the science of the times. It would be as inaccurate and unfair to characterize that science as a myth as calling the eighteenth-century theory of phlogiston a myth. Outdated and naive as it is, the science of the times was based on taking observations of the physical world at face value. It had an empirical basis and should not be equated with myth.