Was the earth created in six literal 24-hour days, or is Young Earth Creationism an embarrassment to the faith?

• O_

  Omar _x3w ago

  My grandmother never read a single word of the Genesis debate literature. She planted a garden every spring, held my hand when I was sick, prayed without ceasing, and died with the peace of God on her face. She believed God made the world in six days and rested on Sunday. I am not going to sit here and tell you she had an embarrassing faith.

  199Reply
• MR

  Maya R.3w ago

  Six literal days. God said it, I believe it, that settles it. The moment you start treating Genesis like a metaphor you've handed the skeptics a crowbar to pry open every other miracle in scripture. If Adam wasn't real, original sin isn't real. If original sin isn't real, why did Jesus have to die? The whole thing unravels.

  187Reply
• K

  Kofi3w ago

  grew up in a YEC homeschool environment. went to college. my faith almost didn't survive the collision with actual geology. not because science disproved God but because I'd been told YEC WAS the faith, and when YEC got complicated, I thought I'd lost everything. churches need to stop weaponizing this and let young people breathe.

  178Reply
• O

  Omar3w ago

  What breaks my heart is that I know a guy — brilliant, genuinely seeking — who was told by an elder that he couldn't fully belong to the church until he renounced evolutionary biology. He left. He's not a Christian today. I'm not blaming YEC entirely for that. But I'm also not going to pretend that erecting unnecessary barriers doesn't have real consequences for real human souls.

  174Reply
• MR

  Maya R.3w ago

  I think what frustrates me most is that this debate consumes enormous energy in the church while people are lonely, addicted, grieving, and hungry. At some point we have to ask: is this argument making disciples or just making combatants?

  168Reply
• A

  Alex3w ago

  I've been a pastor for 22 years. I've watched YEC become a litmus test for evangelical orthodoxy in a way it simply was not when I entered ministry. I've seen it drive away scientists, intellectuals, and curious young people who might otherwise have encountered the gospel. That concerns me deeply. It's not the hill I want the church to die on.

  162Reply
• LK

  Liam K.3w ago

  I just want to point out that Galileo was persecuted by the church for being right about cosmology and the church was very sure it was doing biblical interpretation correctly. This has happened before. Epistemic humility is not compromise — it's learning from history.

  156Reply
• A_

  Alex _x3w ago

  here's what nobody wants to say out loud: the pressure to accept YEC in certain evangelical circles is a social and tribal thing way more than it's a theological thing. I've watched pastors privately admit they have doubts but won't say so from the pulpit because they'd lose their jobs. that's not a search for truth. that's institutional cowardice.

  155Reply
• H

  Hana3w ago

  The real question nobody is asking: why did the creation account exist in the first place? It was written to a people surrounded by ancient Near Eastern creation myths — Enuma Elish, Atrahasis — where the cosmos was made from divine warfare and humans were created as slave labor for the gods. Genesis is a polemic against THAT. The point is the nature and character of the God who creates, not the mechanics or timeline. When we turn it into a science text we're completely missing the original communicative intent.

  148Reply
• Z

  Zara3w ago

  I'm so tired of this debate being treated like a salvation issue. I've been a Christian for 34 years, I believe Jesus rose bodily from the dead, I believe scripture is God-breathed — and I also accept the geological evidence for an old earth. These are not contradictory. Ancient Near Eastern cosmology was never trying to answer the questions a 21st century science textbook answers.

  143Reply
• I

  Iris3w ago

  Can we talk about the starlight problem for a second? If the universe is 6,000 years old, how are we seeing light from stars that are millions of light years away? The light literally should not have had time to reach us. I have never heard a YEC response to this that doesn't require either a physics miracle that scripture doesn't mention or some extremely creative math.

  141Reply
• FL

  Feli L.3w ago

  I've read YEC, OEC, theistic evolution, framework hypothesis. I've wrestled with this for fifteen years. I hold my position loosely now and I think that's actually more faithful than the certainty I had at 22. What I'm certain about: Jesus is alive, the tomb is empty, God loves his creation. The rest I'll sort out in glory.

  137Reply
• O

  Omar3w ago

  The Hebrew word yom in Genesis can mean an unspecified period of time, not just a 24-hour period. This isn't liberal theology — it's basic lexicography. Even some of the church fathers entertained non-literal readings. Augustine explicitly warned against Christians making confident scientific claims from scripture and embarrassing themselves before unbelievers. That warning is more relevant now than ever.

  134Reply
• T

  Taylor3w ago

  Because emperor worship is a theological and ethical claim. The age of rocks is an empirical one. The church can make binding claims in its domain of authority. It's not obviously the church's domain of authority to tell geologists they're wrong about stratigraphy.

  131Reply
• J2

  Jordan 213w ago

  i genuinely don't understand why this has to determine whether I'm a real Christian or not. I believe Jesus is Lord. I believe he died and rose again. I believe the Bible is true. I'm honestly not sure how old the earth is and I've decided God is okay with me not being sure. is that really such a scandal

  123Reply
• RR

  Riley R.3w ago

  That's a false equivalence and you know it. The resurrection is a core soteriological claim. The age of the earth is an interpretation of a pre-scientific text. These are not the same category of claim.

  122Reply
• R

  Reese3w ago

  The Framework Hypothesis, the Day-Age Theory, the Gap Theory — there are multiple well-developed evangelical approaches to Genesis 1 that take scripture seriously without demanding a 6,000 year old earth. Collapsing all of this into "you either believe YEC or you don't believe the Bible" is just not intellectually honest.

  119Reply
• M

  Maya3w ago

  The slippery slope argument is doing a lot of work here and it shouldn't be. Following evidence carefully wherever it leads is not a slippery slope. Refusing to follow evidence because you're afraid of where it goes IS a form of intellectual dishonesty.

  115Reply
• N

  Nina3w ago

  The apparent-age argument is honestly one of the most troubling things I've heard in these discussions. You're basically saying God embedded false evidence into creation. That makes the Creator a deceiver. I don't know how to square that with a God whose very nature is truth.

  112Reply
• Y

  Yuki3w ago

  If you disagree with YEC being a barrier, I want you to explain why you're okay with telling someone that a finding supported by essentially every field of natural science — geology, physics, biology, cosmology, genetics — is something they must reject as a condition of Christian community. How is that not a scandal?

  108Reply
• M9

  Marco 923w ago

  Theistic evolutionist here. Happy to engage. Romans 5 is about human death as a spiritual consequence of human sin — Paul is making a theological point about the federal headship of Adam, not a comprehensive biological history of all organisms. Animal death before human sin doesn't touch that argument unless you bring in assumptions Paul never makes.

  107Reply
• T

  Taylor3w ago

  Ancient genealogies were not written to be exhaustive biological records. Gaps in biblical genealogies are well-documented — compare Kings/Chronicles. The genealogies establish theological lineage and covenant continuity, not a calculable chronology. Bishop Ussher was a brilliant man doing his best with the tools he had, but his 4004 BC date was never the only faithful reading.

  104Reply
• N

  Nina3w ago

  I looked up Humphreys' model once. It's not science, it's science-flavored theology. Publishing in your own organization's journal doesn't make something peer-reviewed. I say this as someone who WANTS to take YEC seriously.

  98Reply
• Y

  Yuki3w ago

  I'm a biology teacher at a Christian school and this tension is REAL every single day. I try to teach the science accurately while respecting the convictions of families who support the school. It's exhausting. I wish the conversation in our churches was more honest about the complexity instead of pretending there's one obvious answer.

  96Reply
• LT

  Liam T.3w ago

  If Genesis 1 isn't historical, the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 don't make sense. Those are clearly structured as historical records, with specific years and names. You can't just wave your hand and say "it's all poetry" when the text itself shifts into what looks like genealogical history immediately afterward.

  93Reply
• NB

  Noah B.3w ago

  "Very good" in Hebrew (tov meod) is an evaluative statement about functional purpose and order, not a claim that no creature ever ate another creature. Lions have always had teeth. God made the lion. This isn't complicated.

  91Reply
• S

  Sam3w ago

  If you accept evolution you have to accept death before the fall. If you accept death before the fall, Romans 5 becomes incoherent. I don't understand how theistic evolutionists handle this and I've asked multiple times and never gotten a straight answer.

  88Reply
• M

  Marco3w ago

  That's... actually kind of irrelevant? Augustine's hermeneutical point stands regardless of which scientific theory is current. The warning was about over-literalizing cosmological language, not about any specific competing theory.

  88Reply
• L

  Liam3w ago

  My denomination requires affirming a historical Adam and Eve but doesn't specify the age of the earth. I think that's actually a pretty wise place to draw the line. The historicity of the fall matters for soteriology. The specific calendar of creation week doesn't in the same way.

  86Reply
• JB

  Jamie B.3w ago

  fine but the simplified version is also basically correct in its conclusion even if the details are messier than the myth. the church was wrong. empirical investigation corrected a confident theological claim about the physical world. the lesson applies.

  84Reply
• D

  Diego3w ago

  Both things can be true simultaneously. We can feed the poor AND think carefully about doctrine. It's not an either/or. The suggestion that theological debate is a distraction from ministry is itself a theological position — and a debatable one.

  82Reply
• NT

  Noah T.3w ago

  But God declared creation "very good" before the fall. Are you telling me billions of years of predation, disease, mass extinction events, and creatures tearing each other apart is what God calls "very good"? That's the god of nature red in tooth and claw, not the God of Genesis.

  79Reply
• LR

  Liam R.3w ago

  Because the church has always required people to reject the consensus of their cultural moment on certain questions. The early church required people to reject emperor worship. The Reformation required people to reject papal authority. Christians throughout history have been countercultural. Why is "reject scientific naturalism" suddenly off the table?

  77Reply
• M

  Morgan3w ago

  Nobody is calling your grandmother embarrassing. We're talking about whether this should be a doctrinal requirement for church membership and whether it's presented accurately as the only valid Christian position. Those are institutional and ecclesiological questions, not a judgment on individual believers.

  76Reply
• M

  Morgan3w ago

  It might be condescending but it might also be true? I can respect someone while also thinking their interpretation causes genuine harm. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

  73Reply
• KM

  Kofi M.3w ago

  This is good scholarship and I appreciate it. But I'd push back slightly — acknowledging the polemical context doesn't automatically mean the text has no interest in historical sequence. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Genre and historical interest can coexist.

  72Reply
• DR

  Drew R.3w ago

  With all due respect pastor, the gospel has always been a stumbling block. The answer to people finding Christianity intellectually uncomfortable isn't to soften the parts that make them uncomfortable. The resurrection is offensive to modern naturalism too — should we walk that back to reach scientists?

  69Reply
• M

  Morgan3w ago

  ok but if God is omnipotent why couldn't he make a universe that LOOKS old but is actually young? He made wine from water instantly at Cana, mature fish in the disciples nets, grown trees in the garden. Apparent age is a perfectly coherent theological category and yall just refuse to engage with it seriously

  67Reply
• DT

  Diego T.3w ago

  I'll be honest: I used to be really smug about being an old-earth Christian. Like I thought I was the sophisticated one. Then I read some actual YEC scholars — not the pop stuff — and realized the exegetical case is stronger than I'd credited. I'm still not YEC but I'm a lot more humble about it than I used to be.

  64Reply
• OR

  Omar R.3w ago

  The Galileo thing is more complicated than the popular version. The church's position was partly political, partly about Galileo's methods of argument, not purely about biblical literalism. I'm not defending the outcome — it was wrong — but the simplified version gets weaponized constantly and it's not quite fair.

  61Reply
• M

  Morgan3w ago

  This is a good comment and more people on both sides should take this posture.

  58Reply
• A

  Alex3w ago

  Or maybe the questions actually matter and people who care about truth take them seriously? Just a thought.

  55Reply
• J

  Jordan3w ago

  Respectfully, what you experienced sounds more like a failure of discipleship than a failure of Young Earth Creationism. If your faith was built entirely on a particular reading of Genesis 1, that's a foundation problem — but the answer isn't to abandon the reading, it's to build faith on Christ.

  54Reply
• M2

  Marco 213w ago

  Based on the tohu wabohu language in verse 2 and some readings of Isaiah and Jeremiah, actually. I don't personally hold it but it's not made up out of thin air. Look up Chafer or even early Scofield before you dismiss it.

  52Reply
• D

  Diego3w ago

  Amen to that last sentence honestly.

  49Reply
• E

  Elena3w ago

  That's a pretty serious accusation against people you're calling cowards. Maybe they've weighed the evidence and genuinely believe YEC is correct. Not every person who holds a traditional view does so out of fear.

  47Reply
• Q

  Quinn3w ago

  There are several proposed YEC models for the starlight problem — Humphreys' white hole cosmology, time dilation models — they're not mainstream physics but they're not nothing. The point is YEC scientists are engaging with the question, they haven't just ignored it.

  44Reply
• Z

  Zara3w ago

  Nope. Hard disagree with the whole frame of the question. Calling YEC an "embarrassment to the faith" is elitist and condescending toward millions of sincere believers.

  41Reply
• D2

  Diego 213w ago

  The Gap Theory is honestly kind of wild when you actually read it. Billions of years between verse 1 and verse 2? Based on what, exactly?

  38Reply
• T

  Taylor3w ago

  Yes actually, because theological precision matters. Vagueness on foundational questions is how liberalism gets its foot in the door. I'm not saying you're not saved but I'm saying comfort with ambiguity on creation is a slippery slope and history proves it.

  33Reply
• J

  Jordan3w ago

  lol at this comment section proving once again that Christians will fight about literally anything

  31Reply
• T

  Theo3w ago

  Augustine also didn't have Darwin. Just saying.

  29Reply
• DT

  Diego T.3w ago

  Which denomination? Genuinely curious because that sounds like a reasonable position and I don't encounter it much.

  17Reply

More debates people can't stop arguing about