The Genesis Code

February 19, 2011

There is a new movie being aggressively marketed to evangelicals in the U.S. called “The Genesis Code”. It features such notables as Ernest Borgnine and Fred Thompson (the former Republican presidential hopeful). The movie appears to center around a budding romance between a young Christian girl and a hockey jock. The jock rejects Christianity because he can’t get past the irreconcilable differences between Genesis and modern science. The girl enlists her lab coat-wearing brother to come up with a solution.

I wish I could tell you that the solution was the discovery that Genesis addresses similar themes as other ancient near eastern origins legends and was never meant as a scientific description of the material origins of the universe. Nope. The solution, dubbed the “Genesis Code”, is that Genesis turns out to be scientifically accurate after all. When Genesis says that God made the world in 6 days, it really means that God made the world over 15.75 billion years. That’s right, modern science and Genesis are telling the exact same story and science is only now catching up to what the biblical author already knew.

Now, to be fair, I haven’t watched the movie, which was just released. But there are several trailers on the movie’s Youtube account and they include the following clip which contains an explanation of the “Genesis Code”:

For anyone with a basic working knowledge of modern science, the above video was probably enough to make you want to put your fist through your screen. But it went a little fast (as is necessary for good sleight of hand), so let me attempt to break it down.

The Time Frames

For some reason, the movie pretends that the age of the Universe is 15.75 billion years old. I have no idea where they’re getting this. Current estimates are 13.7 ± 0.13 billion years. It’s hard not to suspect that the numbers were fudged to make the math work.

In order to cram 15.75 billion years into 6 days, the movie appears to be taking the idea proposed by D. Russell Humphreys in his 1994 book, “Starlight & Time” that if our galaxy were in the center of the universe (we have no reason to think it is) general relativity could distort time such that, while only 6 days were passing on earth, billions of years were passing out on the edges of the universe. If this doesn’t sound right to you, you’re not alone. Dr. Humphreys’ hypothesis has been uniformly criticized. Even old earth creationist Hugh Ross at Reasons To Believe has denounced the theory as “irremediably flawed” and “exhibit[ing] profound misunderstandings of relativity theory and cosmology.” According to Ross, “not one person competent in general relativity and cosmology theory who has examined Starlight and Time has given a ‘pass’ to this theory,” and even Humphreys himself has abandoned most of his central ideas.

Judging from the trailers, the movie presents these claims about time dilation without even a hint that they are controversial (to put it kindly).

In my next post, I will examine the claims made in the movie about how the 6 days (or “Passages of Time” as the movie calls them) match up to the scientific evidence.



  1. If you watched the movie you would know something it doesnt say in the trailer. The movie doesnt just try to prove the bible adds up to science. It also claims to prove through study that the earth is 15.75 billion years old. The movie tells you that the 13.7 billion years is inaccurate. Depending on your scientific belief the movie is fairly accurate.

    • aman brother

    • Tanner, thanks for pointing that out. Given the way the rest of the movie butchers the scientific data, you’ll have to forgive me if I choose to side with the scientific consensus on the age of the universe. However, I am curious to know on what basis they arrive at the 15.75 billion date. This movie is pretty hard to find up here in Canada. Care to fill me in?

  2. What about the seventh day, when God rested? Did time somehow stop? I mean, I’m sure the universe would have still been developing. Was the seventh day not counted in the theory or something? I watched the movie they seemed to have left that part out. Yeah sure, it took six days to create the world but there was a seventh day too. I’m a Christian and I don’t think that day would have been mentioned in the bible for nothing. Wouldn’t you agree? I guess, what I’m asking is did anyone consider the seventh day in their theory at all?

  3. there was no reson to the bible clerly states that the earth was made in 6 DAYS not 7

    • Yes, but the 7 day can’t be ignored. This article points out the main flaw of day 6 being about “land animals appearing” 250 mya, which means he completely ignored the 7th day, which would have been a period of 125 million years. Meaning that it would have been animals appearing about 375 mya, while still off by 20 million years according to footprints, it puts it a lot closer than what this article dictates. Which means all of their comparative measurements in time are off by at least 125,000,000 years.

  4. There is also a very fundamental divergence from the biblical truth that God is not the creator of death, which would be necessary for the Genesis Code premise to be true – creatures living and dieing before sin entered. The Scriptures clearly establish that death came as the result of sin.

    And this doesn’t even address the question as to when the division was established between evolving primates and a hominid with a soul that can be saved. I cannot get my mind around God saving a bunch of dead monkeys, so just exactly what arbitrary line did evolving man cross where he became sentient enough for God to sacrifice His Son to save?

    • The Bible says that death came as a result of sin for man, not all other creation. Clearly Lucifer’s sin and fall occurred long before the creation of man, as we see satan in the garden of Eden.

      • I don’t disagree that death preceded the Genesis time frame. But I would not agree that Lucifer/Satan makes an appearance in the Garden of Eden. There’s a serpent, but you’ll search in vain for any reference to Satan.

      • The Bible clearly connects the “serpent” to Satan. You must use the Bible to define itself, and both Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 refer to “that OLD serpent called the Devil, and Satan” (12:9) and “which is the Devil, and Satan.” 20:2

        That word “old” is the Greek word archaios, which means “from the beginning, original, primal” – clearly a reference to Genesis.

      • It is quite likely that the author of Revelation had in mind the serpent of Gen. 3 in the passages you cite. But you cannot use an interpretation from a late 1st century AD text written by an elder in Asia Minor to decide the meaning of a passage written by Israelites over half a millenium earlier. That would be like using the online Urban Dictionary to help you interpret Shakespeare. Jewish thought did not even conceive of Satan as personified evil/archenemy of God until about the 2nd century BC, long after Genesis was written. For more, see this post.

    • Actually, the Bible says death came as the result of man’s sin. It does not differentiate to what species death comes as a result of that sin. It says that “the whole creation groans.” (see Rom. 8)

      Man, in Genesis, was given dominion over the earth: Genesis 1:26 “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”

      You will find nowhere in the Bible that that dominion was ever revoked, and as a result of it, death entered the earth, including everything over which man has dominion. And that dominion covenant is so binding that the Son of God had to be born, as a human, into the birthright of that covenant in order to exercise the dominion He did in the plan of redemption.

      If you think that dominion has been withdrawn, then to whom was it given? The Devil? If that is true, the we’d all be dead. To God? If so, then there would be no death here.

      No, we are the ones who have dominion over the earth, and that dominion works, as all things, by faith. The Devil’s only weapon is lies. God’s only weapon is truth. Because of the dominion God has given us, it is up to us which we believe and in which we place our faith, and how our faith effects the creation. We can actually create truth for ourselves out of the Devil’s lies by simply placing our faith in them. THAT is the immense power of faith of which Jesus spoke when he said it could remove a mountain (or walk on water, or raise the dead).

      • Gabriel, you seem to be building quite an overarching theological structure out of a single word. But more importantly, how do you square your position with a fossil record that demonstrates that death was part of existence on this planet for all species long before man appeared on the scene?

      • What you ask is quite impossible to address in such a limited venue as this forum. But briefly, one has to ignore the enormous mountain of evidence that the so-called “fossil record” is virtually non-existent, especially if your faith in it is predicated on the geological time-line presented by scientists who ignore all the evidence to the contrary — which is virtually everything that does not fit their exclusive paradigm, and which provides them with all their reasons to reject the existence of God.

        For instance, the dating of mammoths excavated in the arctic where one part of their anatomy was measured at 12,000 years older than another part (no wonder their hair grew so long).

        So, in reality, your faith is not based on God’s ability to provide the truth through His word, but rather on the “science” provided you mostly by atheists.

        You make a great error if you approach Scripture to prove a thesis you already believe, rather than allowing it to speak for itself. With the former, all you get is that of which Paul spoke when he referred to those who “wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction. You end up twisting and contorting the Bible to fit what you want to believe, rather than allowing *it* to inform your beliefs.

  5. I just finished watching the movie. I read the Bible literally unless the Bible indicates figures of speech. For those who have the presupposition to first throw out the Bible and then come to conclusions through man’s ideas, they will roll their eyes at what I’m about to say. The major problem that I have with the Genesis Code theory is that the Plan of Salvation says there was no death or suffering until Adam sinned. What they said went on during the 5th and 6th day / “Passages of Time” (750,000,000) years does not agree with the significance of death being a derivative of sin. They had the creatures of the air, water and later of the earth living and dieing over that long period of time. If death is not necessarily the effect of sin, then the death of The Holy God was not necessarily the loving sacrifice that His own Justice demanded so we could have our spirits and His Holy Spirit linked back together in a relationship.

    • Lowry, why do you “read the Bible literally unless the Bible indicates figures of speech”? You are reading a collection of 66 different books written by different authors in ancient languages and cultures completely foreign to us. Those authors can’t be expected to signal metaphor, myth, allegory, etc. in ways that will be apparent to modern English readers. They will use the literary conventions of their time and culture. And those scholars who have devoted their lives to understanding the literary conventions of those cultures are overwhelmingly of the view that Genesis is not to be read as literal history.

      • To the above nameless face of “cognitivediscopants” I would reply that the idea of basing your faith on “scholars who have devoted their lives to understanding the literary conventions of those cultures” rather than on a God who is well able to reveal His truth to anyone who really wants it, is an exercise in placing the intellect of man on a pedestal higher than God. And I would suggest that the 3 1/2 pounds of brain and cerebral cortex residing within the bone encapsulation of a man’s head is grossly inadequate to sit in judgment of what God’s intent was when inspiring the Scriptures.

        If your religion is centered on man, and his interpretation of Scripture, rather than the revelation of the Spirit, you will be left believing whatever argument seems best and most logical to *your* intellect, forgetting that a clever argument is always in danger of a cleverer argument. So you ultimately end up assigning your beliefs to men rather than God. And that is the very reasoning that got humanity into this mess in the first place.

        Reading your response would seem to indicate (and I hope I am wrong) that you believe in a God who is the author of death, and who does not mean what He says.

        I realize that the various translations of the Scriptures were made by “scholars” as well, but that does not mean that God is impotent to first guide the writers in what they recorded, and second, to bring forth translations that express His principles without flaw. But the Bible is of no more value than to use its pages to roll joints if a soul is not guided by God’s Spirit in the study of it.

  6. @ Gabriel, your arguements are very sound. I am amazed. Wish I could get more of your views on other biblical issues. So what did you think of the movie, The Genesis Code, personally? Is it a theory that works? Based on their approach of “different points of view” it makes sense…even though as merely human, “it has not been given to them to understand the mysteries of God…” (Matt 13:11). Just curious to pick your brain. Thanks!

    • I would just like to say that everyone ‘s input has been in lighting. When you look at everything as a whole some people will always question faith. I just want to add something for everyone to think about. I think that you are looking at death all wrong. It is not referring to death as a literal term. But of the death of one’s soul. Not of its physical self. When you look at this way it allows you deeper understanding and a knowledge of what death could be. Everything dies but man has a soul that lives on after its body dies.
      When this is taken in to account there is a whole new point of view in which to look at the Genesis code and the Bible. I would say to future viewers if this movie and past. That you take this in account. This movie only tries to explain how science and the Bible explain the creation of the earth and how they are interpreted. It shows that they both could in fact be right. All religion is based on truth. Even science.

  7. On the seventh day it says that he rested. He did rest but it also says that he took a break from his creating. That means that he created nothing new but what he had created was still creating like it is today. That is what I took out of the seventh day.

  8. While the movie has some high points, like the reality of the discrimination experienced at secular universities, and the pastor’s defense of his daughter, the representation of Genesis was poor to mediocre. The Genesis Code represents a ‘creation alternative’ position that most closely resembles theistic evolution. No where in the movie were the basic tenants of “evolutionary science” ever questioned, i.e., Is evolution based on operational science? (it is not). Instead, Kerry clings to Genesis without any scientific support, and holds to it simply because it’s her faith. This is good, but the writer’s failure to show that there is decent science behind her belief shows the writer’s bias towards a secular interpretation of the facts. The film seems dead set on reconciling a 15 billion year universe with the Bible via an obscure view of time dilation. It has been reported in other reviews that the film is based on Russell Humprey’s views in Starlight and Time. Humprey’s believes in a six day creation, with 24 hour days based on our reference point, not some other reference point. So his ideas cannot be the inspiration for this movie.
    From a Christian standpoint, there are other glaring problems–the issue of sin is not dealt with. After the “time” issue is supposedly addressed, evolution in all it’s glory is presented as fact, and it’s supposed to make the conflicted Christian viewer say, “Oh, look, it all fits nicely!) The fall of man and the issue of death seems to be accepted as part of God’s plan. This is clearly at oppostion to the Christian worldview. The name of Jesus Christ did not come up once, as far as I can tell. While this may be the intention to “not offend” the viewer, it creates some real problems. Blake apparently “comes to faith”, but faith in what? Not a faith in Christ because he is a sinner. Christianity is for sinners. If you feel you are not a sinner, Jesus is not your answer. The Bible make this plain at numerous places.
    Lastly, I felt the mother’s miraculous recovery at the end was just a bit too campy and not real. Can God heal? Certainly. It just seemed that this healing was not made in heaven, but Hollywood.

  9. “Death” in this fram of reference, speaks of “Spiritual Death” in of the human spirit. Plants and animals have no spirit, thus they die physically, Not spiritually. You’re welcome.

  10. This article totally missed the point of the theory. The Theory is that the earth was created in 6 24 hours days from the perspective of a person outside of the big bang event. Because of the way time is relative to the speed of light (the measuring stick) and that massive gravity makes time move extremely slow for someone inside the event and the fact that time speeds up as the universe expands it looks to us that the universe took billions of years to create from our perspective inside the event and expanding with it. The idea of the movie is that time is not a constant and it all depends on your point of reference. I think It’s an interesting theory and definitely makes you think

    • Thank u I was hoping someone would bring that up I drew the same conclusion it specifically states in the passage that he had not seen the movie and that he was going off of just clips from the movie in the form of trailers… That’s like trying to solve a huge Math problem while 9 tenths of it are covered in a way that thy can’t be seen how can u solve the problem without those parts?

    • I was about to comment similarly–the theory proposed in the movie did not suggest that while only 6 days were passing on planet earth, billions of years were passing on the outer edges of the universe. Instead, the movie theorized that while billions of years were passing on earth, it seemed like only 6 days were passing on the edges of the universe. This is because, as stated above, the perception of the passing of time is relative to the speed of light and the pressure of gravity applied. As gravity gets heavier, the amount of time passing between to moments shortens. As gravity gets lighter, the amount of time passing between moments elongates. However, the theory did not state that the six days were each 24 hours long; they even said in the movie that as the universe expands (as it was during the big bang or days one and two), time’s duration, so to say, lengthens (not shortens as Ron says). Again, this is because of the way the speed of light affects the perception of passing time. I haven’t checked the numbers, but overall from what I have understood from the movie, this theory of the origin of the universe makes sense.

  11. @ Guy G I dont think that the healing at the end of the movie was to show that god has the power to heal which like u said is completely true but what it shows is that god answers prayers in the scene previous that one when the hockey team is praying and correct me if I’m wrong the main guy says that he believes in gods plan but he ask if there is any other way much like Jesus did before he was crucified and unlike Jesus god showed him that there was another way and through his prayer god heard him and his prayer was answered

  12. Okay so first of all, I watched this and it did make sense. But I have to ask a question. Why are you guys trying to prove each other wrong. I see that you want to prove a point but why?? All for human praise or for God??? Now if your not a believer in Christ then why?? For “Scientific Reasons” or for human credit. Just think… If you watched the video an based in your personal believe, you know the truth then why try to prove it??? Let God prove it. I understand as Christians we have to spread the truth but not this way. It just gets people angry and it makes them argue with you. So I’ll ask one last question….. I you don’t believe in Christ then who or what do YOU believe in?????

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: