The author of the forwarded link, Henry Morris III, D.Min.
The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) is a Christian institution in Dallas, Texas that specializes in education, research, and media promotion of creation science and Biblical creationism. The ICR adopts the Bible as an inerrant and literal documentary of scientific and historical fact as well as religious and moral truths, and espouses a Young Earth creationist world view. It strongly rejects the science of evolutionary biology, which it views as a corrupting moral and social influence and threat to religious belief.
Morris provides a list of four bulleted characteristics that Biblical literalism is not, in his (and, by extension, ICR's) view, and contrasts these with five bulleted characteristics that do define proper literalism, in his view. Laying out these points in this way is intended to convey Morris' preferred definition in a clear and concise fashion. However, he falls far short of this goal in many ways.
Morris holds that one is not to "'add' to or 'delete' anything from the text." However, Morris was a member of the Baptist Church, one of a number of Protestant churches who use variations of the King James Bible that do not include the books of the Apocrypha that are part of the Catholic Bible. Why do Morris and other Protestants consider their non-use of the Apocrypha as not being a deletion from the text? Why is Morris' interpretation the correct kind of literalism--and who made Morris the arbiter of this decision?
Similarly, Morris asserts that "every word of God is pure" -- except, according to the Protestant view, the Apocrypha, which Christians considered the "word of God" for about 1,500 years, and then some Christians determined was not the "word of God," while others -- Catholics -- still consider it the "word of God."
Morris asserts that proper Biblical literalism does not include the belief that "every sentence must be taken as redemptive truth," yet, he asserts, proper literalism does mean that people "are to study and obey the text." To redeem means to recover, make up for, and, in the case of Christians, to be delivered from sin; why would a Christian need to "obey" a text if not to live up to truths that he or she does as a way to seek redemption and be delivered from sin?
Morris claims that one is to "embrace the text's historicity, authenticity, accuracy, and authority." I'm confident that the reader will understand the terms "authentic," "accurate," and "authority," at least in their most basic sense. What about "historicity," though? Definitions of historicity include "historical authenticity" and, more specifically, the search for "proof or disproof of the historical accuracy of people and events described in the Bible." As well, "historicity" in the field of philosophy is the study of progress over time, with different schools of philosophy often emphasizing a linear progression or a repetitive, cyclic pattern.
My reading of Morris is that he is intending the middle definition of "historicity": searching for proof of Biblical events. By extension, this means that all of the events in the Bible are literally true: Moses parted the Red Sea, the bush burned, Jonah was swallowed by the whale, and, critically, Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead on the third day, etc. It follows from this interpretation of the Bible that any scientific evidence that would contradict these interpretations -- evidence that the earth is more than ~4,000 years old, that the Biblical flood of the entire earth did not happen, etc. -- would be dismissed out-of-hand.
On this theme, Morris concludes by writing "our search for scientific information will demonstrate the accuracy of the biblical text." This admission undermines the a fundamental tenet of modern science: that propositions are useful in explaining a given phenomenon until a preponderance of evidence undermines the proposition, at which time the scientist is compelled to change her or his proposition. In seeking to apply modern scientific methods and tools solely to support a pre-determined proposition that is by definition beyond challenge is not science -- it is closed-minded ideology.
Morris claims that his literalist approach to the Bible is "naive literalism." The definition of "naive" includes "showing unaffected simplicity of nature or absence of artificiality"; "showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information"; "little or no formal training or technique"; and "Showing or characterized by a lack of sophistication and critical judgment." In all significant ways, Morris does show his brand of literalism to be "naive," but I can't understand how this can be held up as a positive trait or worthy goal to emulate.
Whatever it is that Morris did and that the ICR still does, it's not science.
* These two places were struck through because I was incorrect in identifying the correct Morris. See "A Short History of ICR" on the ICR's website for some clarification on the generations of Henry Morrises affiliated with this organization. Thanks to Morris IV for pointing this out (see comments).