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 real 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, and loyalty to Christ and Scripture meant loyalty to Answers in Genesis and its model of YECism.
My commitment ran so deep that I even considered moving my family to Kentucky to work at the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter. In my mind, defending YECism was defending the Gospel itself, and I instinctively treated any criticism of Ken Ham’s model as an attack on the authority of God's Word.
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.

1 comment:
I appreciate the distinction you are trying to make between “Is the Bible true?” and “Does the Bible support this particular teaching?” That is a valid distinction, and no Christian should treat a ministry brand, a popular model, or a particular apologist as identical with Scripture.
So I agree with this much: loyalty to Christ is not loyalty to Answers in Genesis. Ken Ham is not the magisterium. AiG is not the canon.
But that does not settle the exegetical question.
The issue is still whether the text of Scripture most naturally supports six-day creation. And I think it does.
Genesis 1 presents a sequential creation week with numbered days, each bounded by “evening and morning.” Genesis 2:1–3 concludes that sequence with God resting on the seventh day. Exodus 20:11 then gives explicit later biblical commentary: “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day.” That is not an AiG argument. That is a biblical-theological argument from Genesis and Exodus.
So yes, we should ask, “Does Scripture actually support this?” But when I ask that question, I do not arrive at an indefinite-age framework. I arrive at a six-day creation week because that is what the repeated structure, grammar, sequence, and later canonical commentary indicate.
I also do not think it is fair to frame the issue as though leaving YEC automatically represents deeper contextual study, while remaining YEC represents inherited bias. That cuts both ways. Every interpreter brings pressures to the text. Some bring fundamentalist tribal pressure. Others bring academic respectability pressure. Others bring scientific-consensus pressure. The question is not whether pressure exists. The question is whether the text is allowed to govern the conclusion.
I fully agree that the gospel rests on Christ, His death, and His resurrection. A person is not saved by having a correct chronology of Genesis 1. But Genesis is still Scripture. Creation is still doctrine. Hermeneutics still matters.
So I am not defending YEC because AiG taught it. I am defending six-day creation because I believe it is the most straightforward reading of the biblical text itself.
Post a Comment