My Journey Out of YECism

 

My journey away from Young Earth Creationism (YECism) began with a simple yet profound question: Is YECism supported by Scripture?

I was raised in a YEC environment, and my only exposure to apologetics came from Answers in Genesis. As a result, I believed evangelism meant convincing people that evolution was false and that YECism was true. To me, Christian apologetics was synonymous with young-earth apologetics.

However, after witnessing close friends and family deconstruct their faith one after another, I was compelled to study apologetics more deeply—focusing on the essentials, particularly the evidence for Jesus and His resurrection. This naturally led me to explore topics like textual criticism, the reliability of the New Testament, and the cultural context and literary genres within Scripture.

Much to my surprise, I discovered that the evidence for my faith was far stronger than I had ever known, based on what I had been taught by AiG. This realization prompted me to apply the same principles I used in studying the New Testament to my YEC beliefs. At the time, I was still committed to YECism and approached the question with a genuine desire to determine whether the teachings I had accepted and had shared with others were truly supported by Scripture.

I was not questioning whether the Bible was true or authoritative—I already believed it was. Nor was I seeking to reinterpret Scripture to accommodate a secret fascination with evolution or millions of years. Rather, I wanted to ensure that the things I had claimed about Scripture were indeed biblically grounded. If they were not, I understood that I needed to adjust my thinking to align with God's Word.

Applying the same critical criteria that had confirmed the reliability of the New Testament and using the logic I had previously employed to challenge non-YEC interpretations, I soon became convinced that the Bible did not support YECism or many of the claims I had once made about it. As a result, I changed my stance.

My departure from YECism was not based on accepting evolution or scientific evidence imposed onto Scripture—it was rooted in a deeper understanding of the text in its original context.

Contrary to the claims of AiG and other YEC organizations, there is a fundamental difference between asking, "Is the Bible true?" and "Does the Bible support a particular teaching?" The former is often a question of trust—whether the Bible is reliable on a given point. Someone asking this question may ultimately rely on their own judgment, potentially dismissing Scripture if it contradicts their preconceived ideas.

Conversely, someone asking whether the Bible supports a specific teaching is engaging in discernment. They are more likely to allow Scripture to shape their conclusions, adjusting their understanding if their initial beliefs prove to be inaccurate.

As Christians, we should strive to be in the latter category—approaching Scripture with humility and a willingness to be shaped by God's truth rather than filtering it through our own biases. Instead of seeking confirmation for our existing beliefs, we must allow the Word to refine and correct us, growing in wisdom and understanding.

The Theology of Death: Reconciling God's Sovereign Plan with Creation

 

The discussion surrounding animal death in God’s creation has long been a point of contention, particularly among those who adhere to young earth creationism. Some argue that death—especially animal death—contradicts the redemptive work of Christ, while others maintain that Scripture presents animal death as part of God’s intended design rather than a tragic consequence of sin.

Dr. Timothy Mortenson asserts:

“To accept millions of years of animal death before the creation and Fall of man contradicts and destroys the Bible’s teaching on death and the full redemptive work of Christ.” (1)

Similarly, Ken Ham states:

“So to believe in millions of years is a gospel issue. This belief ultimately impugns the character of the Creator and Savior and undermines the foundation of the soul-saving gospel.” (2)

Yet, despite these concerns, the Bible itself does not present animal death as intrinsically evil or contrary to God’s plan.

Was Christ's Sacrifice an Afterthought?

Some argue that death could not have existed before the Fall because Christ's sacrifice was meant to counteract sin and its consequences. However, even leading YEC proponents at Answers in Genesis acknowledge that Christ’s sacrifice was foreordained before the world was created.

Steve Ham explains:

“As the One who is before all things, He (God) providentially rules over all things as He pleases. Christ is the sovereign Lord. He does not make choices willy nilly; nor is He surprised by anything that happens on earth—even Adam’s original sin. He is the unchangeable God, and what He purposed before the world was created will certainly happen. Nothing can change those plans. No, Jesus went to the Cross exactly as God had intended before the world began. ‘This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men’ (Acts 2:23). Jesus is the very design and accomplishment of God’s eternal wisdom. The plan of redemption was not a necessary afterthought to remedy a plan gone wrong. Jesus Christ had purposed to redeem us from eternity past. His work on the Cross is nothing short of the pinnacle of the revelation of God’s eternal and sovereign wisdom.” (3)

This understanding reinforces the idea that God’s plan was never disrupted. If Christ’s sacrifice was foreordained, then the existence of death—even before the Fall—was anticipated and accounted for in God’s divine wisdom.

Does the Bible Actually Teach That Animal Death Came Through Adam?

YEC often relies on four main proof texts to support the premise that animal death came through Adam: Romans 5:12, 6:23, 8:19-23, and—though less frequently—1 Corinthians 15:21. However, a closer examination of these passages challenges YEC assumptions:

1. 1 Corinthians 15:21 is clearly referring only to human beings, as the surrounding context is focused on the resurrection of the dead.

2. Romans 6:23 explicitly states that "the wages of sin is death," referring to human spiritual death, not the death of animals.

3. Romans 5:12 states that death spread to all humans because all humans sin, but does not clarify whether this applies to all of creation.

4. Romans 8:19-23 states that creation was subjected to frustration (mataiotēti, ματαιότητι) and decay (phthoras, φθορᾶς), not death.

The word mataiotēti can be translated as futility or vanity, possibly alluding to Ecclesiastes, which emphasizes the futility of a life without God. Phthoras, translated as decay, can also mean corruption—which aligns with Paul’s focus in Romans on spiritual and moral corruption rather than physical death. Additionally, while some translations insert the word “death” into Romans 8:21, the original Greek does not include it. Instead, Paul seems to allude to the broken world-system created by fallen humanity rather than a universal death curse placed on all creation. Furthermore, we find no explicit reference to such a curse in Genesis 3, though that is where one might naturally expect it.

Ultimately, nothing in Scripture explicitly states that the creation was cursed with death because of Adam’s sin. While Romans 8 describes creation's groaning, it points toward the brokenness of the human condition and our ultimate redemption.

As uncomfortable as it may be for modern readers, the biblical authors did not view animal death as evil. Many passages in Scripture present animal death as part of God's provision, even as a good thing:

• Psalm 104:21, 147:9, and Job 38:41-49 praise God for providing carnivores and scavengers with food.
  
  

• Psalm 104:25-30 glorifies God as the giver and taker of life, including His care for Leviathan.
  
  

• Job 1:20-22 and Matthew 10:29 recognize God’s sovereignty over life and death.

The Bible also presents animal sacrifice as a good thing, not only for atonement but for thanksgiving and praise (Leviticus 7:11-38, 23:24-25, Psalm 116). Furthermore, God Himself permitted humans to eat animals—implicitly through the dominion verbs kabash (כָּבַשׁ) and radah (רָדָה) in Genesis 1:28, and explicitly in Genesis 9:3, when God reaffirmed His covenant with Noah after the Flood.

Was Creation "Perfect" Before the Fall?

Contrary to common assumptions, Genesis 1 does not say that creation was perfect. It states that God called it “very good” (towb meod, מְאֹ֑ד ט֖וֹב), meaning it functioned according to His plan. However, it does not use the Hebrew word for perfect (tamim, תָּמִים).

Old Testament scholar, Dr. John H. Walton explains: 

“Our modern Western system of ideas, which historians and philosophers call humanism, is based on the belief that human happiness constitutes the highest value and therefore the highest good. Happiness in turn is generally defined in terms of an absence of pain, such that our word evil is synonymous with human suffering. ...The cognitive environment of the ancient Near East, however, did not hold human happiness as the highest ideal. Their highest ideal is probably best described by our English word order. For ancient Near Easterners, a thing was good not based on the extent to which it produced human pleasure or alleviated human suffering, but to the extent to which it was functioning as it was intended to. ...This was part of the cognitive environment of the ancient world and was what ancient writers meant when they used the word that translators render in English as good.” –The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest, pp. 21, 22

Throughout Scripture, things God creates—including angels, Adam, and Eve—are not perfect in the same sense that God Himself is perfect. By imposing modern standards of perfection onto the Genesis account, YEC inadvertently judges God’s creation by flawed human logic rather than biblical truth.

Conclusion

Understanding death within God's creation challenges long-held assumptions, but it also invites us to see divine wisdom in a new light. If Christ’s sacrifice was foreordained from eternity, then death—even before the Fall—was neither a disruption nor an accident, but rather part of God's sovereign design. Instead of perceiving animal death as a tragic flaw in creation, Scripture reveals a tapestry of divine provision, order, and purpose.

Perhaps the discomfort surrounding death stems more from human limitations than from theological necessity. Modern perspectives often equate suffering with injustice, yet biblical wisdom points to a greater reality—one in which life and death are woven into the fabric of God's perfect plan. The question, then, is not whether death negates God's goodness, but whether our own expectations of perfection align with the way God Himself defines "very good.”

Instead of asking whether death contradicts God's creation, perhaps we should consider whether our understanding of life and eternity is broad enough to embrace God's wisdom beyond human comprehension. As Isaiah 55:8-9 reminds us: “... my thoughts are not your thoughts, and your ways are not My ways. This is the Lord’s declaration. For as heaven is higher than earth, so My ways are higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.”

In the end, God's design may not conform to our expectations, but His wisdom far surpasses anything we could ever grasp.

See Also:

Six Non-Essential Doctrines Connected to the Age of the Earth

Beyond Visions and Spirits: The Radical Claim of Jesus’ Resurrection

In the ancient world, alleged visions of spirits and divine beings were common enough that few would have questioned such claims. Had Jesus' disciples merely reported seeing a vision, an angel, or his spirit, their story might have been more palatable to both Jews and Gentiles alike. But they claimed something far more audacious—something that challenged the very fabric of Jewish and Greco-Roman thought: Jesus had been physically resurrected.

This was not the expected Messiah narrative, nor was it a belief easily embraced in a world where resurrection was either reserved for the distant future or outright dismissed as impossible. Even Jesus' own disciples struggled to accept what they were seeing (Luke 24:36-43), requiring convincing evidence that their master was truly alive (John 20:24-29, Acts 1:1-3). Their conclusion—that Jesus had been physically resurrected—becomes even more perplexing if the post-resurrection appearances were hallucinations. After all, hallucinations are inherently personal experiences, not collective ones; multiple people do not share the same vision when hallucinating.

Given the cultural context, a more plausible claim would have been that Jesus’ spirit, ghost, or an angel had appeared to his disciples, or that they had experienced visions of Christ. A bodily resurrection was the last thing one would expect, considering belief in physical resurrection was uncommon in the ancient world.

To be fair, the Pharisee sect of Judaism did believe in a resurrection at the end of time. However, they did not anticipate that the Messiah himself would die and rise again. There was also one school of Jewish thought that envisioned two Messiahs—one who would suffer and die, and another who would reign eternally. This was their attempt to reconcile the suffering servant depicted in certain Old Testament passages with the triumphant king portrayed in others.

Meanwhile, Platonic philosophy viewed the physical body as inherently corrupt, emphasizing the soul’s liberation from its earthly vessel. To the Greco-Roman mind, the idea of bodily resurrection was not just improbable—it was repulsive. This cultural resistance is well documented in Acts 17:32, 26:24-29, and 1 Corinthians 1:23.

If Jesus’ disciples had sought to fabricate a new religion for personal gain, they would not have built its foundation on the death and bodily resurrection of their God. Such claims would have been scandalous to Jews and revolting to Gentiles. The Jews would have deemed them blasphemous, while the Greco-Roman world would have found them philosophically abhorrent.

And yet, against all odds and cultural expectations, Christianity took root—starting in the very city where Jesus had been publicly executed—and spread across the world. What began as the bold and unlikely testimony of a handful of followers soon transformed into a force that reshaped history, defied persecution, and endured the test of time. The very claim that should have made Christianity unthinkable became the foundation upon which millions would stake their faith. Against all odds, the message of a risen Christ was not silenced—it spread, endured, and changed the course of civilization itself.

The Serpent's Lie

“The very first attack, what I call ‘the Genesis 3 Attack,’ was on God’s Word: ‘And [Satan] said to the woman, ‘Has God indeed said?’ (Genesis 3:1). Satan used the ploy to get Eve to question God’s Word, thus creating doubt that ultimately led to unbelief. That same attack on God’s Word has never let up and continues each day.” (1)

~Ken Ham
“Choosing to Resist ‘The Genesis 3 Attack’”
01/25/2017
Accessed via answersingenesis.com 03/28/2025

“Now, the ‘lie’ is more than evolution or millions of years. It speaks to a deeper issue—one that has plagued humanity since Adam and Eve took that first bite of the forbidden fruit.

“It begins with the question, ‘Did God actually say?’ (Genesis 3:1). I like to call this the ‘Genesis 3 attack’ of our age—one that causes people to question what God has revealed to us in his Word. We are warned in 2 Corinthians 11:3 that Satan will use this same Genesis 3 attack on us as he did to Eve—to make us disbelieve the Word of God.” (2)

~Ken Ham
Facebook Post
03/27/2025

In essence, this is correct. The serpent in Genesis 3 did ultimately succeed in convincing the man and woman to doubt God's character and break His command not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. And it is certainly true that the “lie” of Genesis 3 is much deeper than the creation-evolution controversy. However, I would present to the reader that while the serpent's deception indeed begins with a question in Genesis 3:1, the actual lie itself is found in Genesis 3:4-5. That being said, there is much more in Genesis 3:1-7 that warrants our attention.

First of all, it should be noted that the “serpent” in Genesis 3 is not a normal member of the animal kingdom. Nor is he ever called Satan in the Old Testament. This is a later development. In Genesis 3 the word translated “serpent” is “nachash” [נָחָשׁ]. This word has multiple meanings in Hebrew including “snake/serpent,” “divination” or “burning/shining [one].” As the late Hebrew scholar Dr. Michael Heiser notes, within the cultural context of the ancient Near East, this language implies that the serpent in Genesis 3 was a divine being—an “elohim” [אֱלהִים]—and not a normal snake at all. (3) This explains why Eve and her husband (who was present with her according to Genesis 3:6) were comfortable speaking with the nachash in the first place as well as why they were so trusting of him.

Second, while certainly disingenuous, the nachash's baiting question in Genesis 3:1 was not an outright lie in itself. He did not accurately represent what God had said (see Genesis 2:16-17), but he also did not claim that this was in fact what God had commanded. The question itself is framed as a harmless request for clarification, veiling his nefarious intentions: “Did God really say, ‘You can't eat from any tree...?’” Hence Eve was not deceived by this question. She understood that this was not what God had said and corrected the nachash saying, “We may eat the fruit from the trees in the garden. But about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God said, ‘You must not eat it…’” However, she also took things a bit further than this and added “...or touch it, or you will die.” This means that the first person to actually change God’s Word and attribute said change to God wasn’t the nachash—it was Eve. She did not deny what God had commanded by removing something from His Word—she added an additional commandment instead. 

Third, “Did God really say, ‘You can’t eat from any tree in the garden?’” is not the lie the serpent used to seduce Eve. It isn’t accurate to what God said, as previously noted. But the first lie he told Eve was in Genesis 3:4 when he openly denied God's warning that mankind would be sentenced to death should they choose to disobey and eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (see Genesis 3:22-24). Even so, it was his following comments in Genesis 3:5 that sowed the seeds of doubt in God's character and trustworthiness and ultimately seduced the woman, “...God knows that when you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God [elohim], knowing good and evil.”

The serpent's lie wasn’t “Did God really say?”. It was that God was untrustworthy, and that mankind could become like God (or gods/divine beings). This was the same lie the nachash told himself before he ever tempted Eve.

In Isaiah 14:12-14 and Ezekiel 28:11-19 the human kings of Babylon and Tyre respectively are compared to a non-human, divine rebel in Eden who became proud and sought to exalt himself above the throne of God—to become not only like the Most High, but greater than Him. The original lie, therefore, is that a created being can usurp the authority of Yahweh and become like the Most High.

This is the lie that seduced Eve according to Genesis 3:6: “The woman saw that the tree was good for food and delightful to look at, and that it was desirable for obtaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it…”

Adam and Eve did not fall because the nachash said “Did God really say?”. They fell because they believed that they could become like God/gods. Eve was the first one to add to God’s commands out of a desire to obey them. And it was the desire to become like God/gods, knowing both good and evil, that led the man and woman to sin.

Ultimately, this is what all sin is. When we sin, we reject the authority of God in our lives and choose instead to live by our own subjective moral standards. In so doing, we raise ourselves above the throne of the Most High and become gods in our own eyes. That is the original lie. And it is just as potent today as it was in the beginning.