Scott spends pages 54-56 talking through the symbolism found in Genesis. My dad has blogged about this before, and there are interesting things to consider in all that.
But then Scott presents us with two huge straw men which she burns in passing. In describing a continuum of Biblical literalists to philosophical naturalists she also tacks on creationists to evolutionists. But wait, there's more! Her first two examples of "creationists" are... flat earthers and geocentrists.
She's got two beliefs that are utterly separate from creation as examples of the foolishness of creationism. Granted, they are both part of a literalist continuum of Scripture, but it is completely wrong to include them in a creation/evolution scale.
Somehow she also wants us to equate Young Earthism with Flat Earthism as well. 
Now she begins an overview of the various segments of her supposed continuum. A few points worth mentioning:
"The basic body plans of major phyla that appear in the 'Cambrian Explosion' are seen by most [Young Earth Creationists] as evidence of Special Creation."  No footnote for further study. No mention of how she got to this idea. No hint as to where we can go to find out why the "Cambrian Explosion" is (or is not) evidence for creation. Nothing. In typical fashion for this work. I'm appalled that the "Internet Bookwatch" would say, on the back of this book, that Scott adheres "to the highest standards of academic research"... when she references nothing of importance. Ever.
Similarly, she states, "In proportion to the mission activity, little scientific research is performed by [Institute for Creation Research] faculty."  That doesn't surprise me much. I have no trouble believing it's true. But if you're going to make such a statement, giving some hint as to where she got that idea is essential to prove she isn't just a windbag.
I do appreciate her inclusion of this quote from Matt Cartmill:
Many scientists are atheists or agnostics who want to believe that the natural world they study is all there is, and being only human, they try to persuade themselves that science gives them grounds for that belief. It's an honorable belief, but it isn't a research finding .
Scott concludes the chapter by stating,
both supporters and deniers of evolution argue erroneously that because science utilizes methodological naturalism (and quite successfully), science therefore also incorporates philosophical naturalism. Unfortunately, such a confusion makes communication about science and religion, or creationism and evolution, more difficult. 
And I would agree.
Of course, arguing from erroneous couplings and citing no evidence also makes discussion more difficult as well.
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father