If Genesis 1 was not part of Genesis at all, I would still be something very similar to a young-age creationist. The genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 would still imply a young age of human beings, and the account of the creation of the Garden of Eden would imply a recent origin of at least some land animals and all birds. Special creation of humans, land animals, and birds would be inconsistent with acceptance of universal common descent, which in turn would call into question the fossil record, which seems to show a much more ancient origin of birds. I think one could even make a case for no death before the Fall, but it would be weakened without the herbivory statements of Gen. 1:29-30. No death before human sin would then require a reinterpretation of most of the fossil record. Also adding to a need to reinterpret the fossil record is the global nature of the Flood. I don't know that I'd have to accept a young cosmos without Genesis 1, but I think I'd still reject universal common descent and an ancient interpretation of the fossil record.The bit about the cosmos is where I went wrong. I totally forgot Exodus 20:11,
For the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and everything in them in six days; then He rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and declared it holy.That would rule out an ancient universe, since the LORD made everything in the heavens in six days. So I would be exactly what I am now even without Genesis 1. To those of you who love to criticize creationists about the genre of Genesis 1 and the meaning of yom (Hebrew for "day"): It doesn't matter. It doesn't. Sorry to disappoint, but I've always thought the young-age creation doctrine is supported by far more than just one chapter. I guess I was right about that.