 It's not often that I'm asked to view a movie that combines science and Christianity in regard to the creation narrative in Genesis. I was excited about receiving this movie to review here on Joy In Our Journey. After I learned that The Genesis Code is rated PG and received a great review from the Dove Foundation, I was even more excited to show this to my family! I can't even begin to tell you how disappointed I was after we finished watching The Genesis Code. I don't recommend this for Christian families or non-Christian families. I don't recommend The Genesis Code for anyone. Below, you will find:
|
 |  |
Problems we noticed with The Genesis Code:
Problem #1: Inappropriate romantic relationships are made to seem natural and okay.
Kerry, one of the key characters in The Genesis Code, was portrayed as a very strong Christian, one who lives out her life based on biblical truths and principles. Yet, almost right away in the movie, she begins to flirt with Blake, an obvious unbeliever - in his own words. She is presented as a very mature Christian, but obviously the producers aren't familiar with 2 Corinthians 6:14 and the command that Christians are not to flirt with nor have romantic associations with unbelievers...and even believers who are not as committed to Christ or are much weaker in their spiritual growth.
Toward the end of the movie, Blake seems to begin to accept that maybe there is a God, and Kerry takes that as a sign that he must suddenly be a "strong believer" now, even though he hasn't professed faith in Jesus Christ, so she kisses him and obviously takes their relationship to a deeper level. Even the demons believe that there is a God - but it doesn't make them followers of Jesus Christ. Our family could tell that the producers have a low view of Scripture when discussing romantic relationships.
Kerry, one of the key characters in The Genesis Code, was portrayed as a very strong Christian, one who lives out her life based on biblical truths and principles. Yet, almost right away in the movie, she begins to flirt with Blake, an obvious unbeliever - in his own words. She is presented as a very mature Christian, but obviously the producers aren't familiar with 2 Corinthians 6:14 and the command that Christians are not to flirt with nor have romantic associations with unbelievers...and even believers who are not as committed to Christ or are much weaker in their spiritual growth.
Toward the end of the movie, Blake seems to begin to accept that maybe there is a God, and Kerry takes that as a sign that he must suddenly be a "strong believer" now, even though he hasn't professed faith in Jesus Christ, so she kisses him and obviously takes their relationship to a deeper level. Even the demons believe that there is a God - but it doesn't make them followers of Jesus Christ. Our family could tell that the producers have a low view of Scripture when discussing romantic relationships.
2 Corinthians 6:14 ~ Stop forming inappropriate relationships with unbelievers. Can right and wrong be partners? Can light have anything in common with darkness?
Problem #2: Genesis is portrayed as "too difficult" to understand.
The main goal of this movie is to portray the struggle between Christians who believe in the six literal days of the Genesis creation, and the assumed 16-billion-year age of the universe. We noticed that Kerry's father, who was a senior pastor of his local church, should have been able to clearly demonstrate the factual reasoning behind a literal six-day creation. Unfortunately, this pastor isn't able to defend the Bible and the Christian faith, and mutters that the book of Genesis is a hard book to understand.
Our family disagrees. We have read the book of Genesis for many years, and we feel it is a simple book to understand. Kerry's dad (the pastor) is shown to be a very intelligent man who has studied hard over his lifetime, but it was obvious to us that the pastor is not able to understand the plain reading of the Bible. This is very sad. It is only when someone believes in the 16-billion-year old universe that the Bible in its literal, plain reading is difficult to understand.
Problem #3: Scientific "evidence" is presented with enthusiasm and delight, while biblical evidence is muttered about and compromised.
Unless children and teens - and adults, too, have studied the Bible in depth and are raised with a strong belief in Scripture, they will get caught up with the excitement and enthusiasm of the mixing of the scientific and the biblical. But even my 12-year-old noticed that the Bible always was discussed as being compromised and having to take second-chair to the scientific concepts which were being discussed.
She noticed that the producers are assuming that death was a part of creation, before the Fall of mankind (Adam and Eve). Not so! The death of an animal to provide animal fur coverings for naked and ashamed Adam and Eve was the first death in creation. The Genesis Code producers believe that billions of years of life and death existed before Adam and Eve were created.
Problem #4: Basic elements of the Christian faith are never mentioned.
Jesus Christ's name is never mentioned in The Genesis Code, even though the book of Genesis names Him as the Creator.
The Fall of Adam and Eve (mankind) was never mentioned, nor was God's entire story of redemption never mentioned, which is the purpose of the entire Bible.
Jesus Christ's name is never mentioned in The Genesis Code, even though the book of Genesis names Him as the Creator.
The Fall of Adam and Eve (mankind) was never mentioned, nor was God's entire story of redemption never mentioned, which is the purpose of the entire Bible.
Problem #5: "A day is like a thousand years" has been warped and twisted.
This is an age-old argument, where philosophers who don't believe in the plain, clear teachings of Genesis attempt to twist the meanings of the word "day". Sadly, The Genesis Code twists this so cleverly while mixing it with evolutionary concepts that many will think to themselves, "Hey, that makes sense!" when they should instead be thinking, "Wow - they are really trying to deceive people with logical fallacies!" Our 14-year-old was able to point out numerous fallacies in their presentation of concepts, but she has studied logical fallacies over the last year or so and was able to catch the errors in the movie script.
Problem #6: If we disagree with the movie characters, we are told that we are arrogant, critical, and prideful in so doing.
The pastor and the science professor have a discussion while at a shooting range. (Amazingly, they go from being enemies to best buddies in about 5 nanoseconds after the college students present their bizarre opinions in mixing science and the Bible.) In this discussion, they basically say that if anyone feels that their opinions are incorrect or not true, then the viewer is arrogantly misguided. So, if I disagree with this movie's theme, I'm a stupid idiot, and prideful about it as well. We were all offended that because our view may disagree with theirs, we would be told we are stupid and arrogant.
Problem #7: All roads that lead to God are okay.
Nothing could be farther from the truth! God is extremely clear in the Holy Bible that there is only one way to God and Heaven, and that is through a solid faith in Jesus Christ as my Creator and my Savior. People can choose to believe whatever they want, but only the truths in the Bible will guide them correctly.
Problem #8: Many viewers will be confused by this film and could potentially have their faith in God lessened or damaged.
It wasn't until the middle of The Genesis Code where we realized where the producers were having this movie lead. The first half, except for the romantic relationship between Blake and Kerry, is very interesting, and it seems like Kerry is presenting a godly testimony on her college campus. At the mid-point, Kerry and some of her friends do a "scientific" presentation to combine creation and evolution, and it is there that the viewer would hopefully realize that this movie was designed to present theistic evolution as its goal, and to discredit the Bible. Unfortunately, I could see many people being misled by this film. I would only show it to others with much caution and explanation ahead of time, as well as holding lengthy discussion after the viewing of the film.
A scientist's view of The Genesis Code:
The film, “The Genesis Code” (2010), is an interesting film in that the acting is excellent, although the story line is contrived to provide the best possible “propaganda” setting for the basic tenants which the film makers hope the viewer will adopt. First, there is very little “biblical” content to the film---the film works to equate the 16 Billion-Year age of the earth from “Big Bang” Cosmology and the first chapter of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible. Second, the film uses a standard “propaganda” technique of multiple repetitions to convince the viewer that the statements made are totally true, accurate, and impossible to reject. A major issue missing in the film is an explanation of how billions of years of death and extinction---of evolution theory ----aligns with the “fall of man” and the introduction of sin and death to all living organisms.
The film relies almost exclusively on the Cosmology of the “Big Bang”, which event is explained quite well. However, the “Big Bang” theory derives from a solution to Einstein’s General Relativity equation (a macroscopic equation which deals with large gravitational forces, enormous distances, and large masses). The solution---in terms of time---leads to a “singularity” at zero time. The problem with singularities (at any time) is that the solution to the equation fails to exist at a singularity. The second problem with “Big Bang” Cosmology is that Einstein’s General Relativity equation does not provide an answer to the question, “How does the universe begin at time zero (at the singularity)?” “Big Bang” Cosmologists invoke the quantum theory of fluctuations to explain how energy and mass appear at time zero. The cosmologists say that a quantum fluctuation is the source of the energy (and mass) appearing at the singularity. However, the theory of quantum fluctuations (and quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, for that matter) is a theory of describing microscopic particles of matter, microscopic quanta of light and energy, and microscopic spatial dimensions. It does not deal with anything macroscopic, unlike Einstein’s General Relativity equation, which does not deal with anything microscopic.
According to the “Big Bang” Cosmology, at time zero, the spatial coordinate system of the universe was reduced to a microscopic point---which satisfies the microscopic spatial dimensions within which quantum mechanics attempts to describe how matter behaves. However, the extremely large amount of energy (mass)---necessary to be concentrated at the singularity (time zero) at a microscopic point---does not correspond to the restraints of quantum mechanics. Hence, the “Big Bang” Cosmologist must find a macroscopic explanation of how the enormous amount of energy (mass) was “deposited” at the singularity. There has never been an explanation. Further, nuclear physics research has never found quantum fluctuations which produce more than a few microscopic particles and/or a few light or energy quanta, all in a very restricted microscopic region of space.
It is important to note that there has been, both early in the discussion of the “Big Bang” theory, and more recently, vigorous dissent by a significant number of cosmologists concerning the correctness of the “Big Bang” Cosmology. It is also important to note that cosmology is not a science (as nothing concrete can be proved) but a philosophical pursuit. There are many different cosmologies of the universe (the steady state theory [many variants], the “Big Bang” theory [many variants], and “quasi” steady state theories. Science has never provided any proof of any of these different cosmologies---there are, however, inferences which provide some support for each of them. So, when the film states over and over that “science has proved” or “science tells us”, or whatever similar statement inferring that science unequivocally supports the “Big Bang” Cosmology and thus the supposed equation of “Big Bang” Cosmology and “biblical” cosmology, these lines voiced by the actors are simply untrue and are one of the most simple of “propaganda” tools. Science does not equate the 16 billion years of evolution with the 6 days of Genesis. Note: the film never gives any proof for any of the cosmology statements except one---the background radiation found by research conducted using radio telescopes---the “Big Dishes” found at Stanford, at Arecibo in Puerto Rico, and elsewhere.
The “Genesis Code” is a clever film made by individuals who are essentially evolutionists and are “anti-creationists”. It is not an enlightening comparison of “creationist” interpretations of scientific observations and “evolutionist” interpretations of scientific observations. The film does not accurately nor justly deal with the “creationist” world view at all. The reviewer recommends that one find appropriate materials (videos, films, books) which provide a better comparison of the two world views or find materials—from each world view---which present those world views well.
Gary Underhill, Ph.D.
The film relies almost exclusively on the Cosmology of the “Big Bang”, which event is explained quite well. However, the “Big Bang” theory derives from a solution to Einstein’s General Relativity equation (a macroscopic equation which deals with large gravitational forces, enormous distances, and large masses). The solution---in terms of time---leads to a “singularity” at zero time. The problem with singularities (at any time) is that the solution to the equation fails to exist at a singularity. The second problem with “Big Bang” Cosmology is that Einstein’s General Relativity equation does not provide an answer to the question, “How does the universe begin at time zero (at the singularity)?” “Big Bang” Cosmologists invoke the quantum theory of fluctuations to explain how energy and mass appear at time zero. The cosmologists say that a quantum fluctuation is the source of the energy (and mass) appearing at the singularity. However, the theory of quantum fluctuations (and quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, for that matter) is a theory of describing microscopic particles of matter, microscopic quanta of light and energy, and microscopic spatial dimensions. It does not deal with anything macroscopic, unlike Einstein’s General Relativity equation, which does not deal with anything microscopic.
According to the “Big Bang” Cosmology, at time zero, the spatial coordinate system of the universe was reduced to a microscopic point---which satisfies the microscopic spatial dimensions within which quantum mechanics attempts to describe how matter behaves. However, the extremely large amount of energy (mass)---necessary to be concentrated at the singularity (time zero) at a microscopic point---does not correspond to the restraints of quantum mechanics. Hence, the “Big Bang” Cosmologist must find a macroscopic explanation of how the enormous amount of energy (mass) was “deposited” at the singularity. There has never been an explanation. Further, nuclear physics research has never found quantum fluctuations which produce more than a few microscopic particles and/or a few light or energy quanta, all in a very restricted microscopic region of space.
It is important to note that there has been, both early in the discussion of the “Big Bang” theory, and more recently, vigorous dissent by a significant number of cosmologists concerning the correctness of the “Big Bang” Cosmology. It is also important to note that cosmology is not a science (as nothing concrete can be proved) but a philosophical pursuit. There are many different cosmologies of the universe (the steady state theory [many variants], the “Big Bang” theory [many variants], and “quasi” steady state theories. Science has never provided any proof of any of these different cosmologies---there are, however, inferences which provide some support for each of them. So, when the film states over and over that “science has proved” or “science tells us”, or whatever similar statement inferring that science unequivocally supports the “Big Bang” Cosmology and thus the supposed equation of “Big Bang” Cosmology and “biblical” cosmology, these lines voiced by the actors are simply untrue and are one of the most simple of “propaganda” tools. Science does not equate the 16 billion years of evolution with the 6 days of Genesis. Note: the film never gives any proof for any of the cosmology statements except one---the background radiation found by research conducted using radio telescopes---the “Big Dishes” found at Stanford, at Arecibo in Puerto Rico, and elsewhere.
The “Genesis Code” is a clever film made by individuals who are essentially evolutionists and are “anti-creationists”. It is not an enlightening comparison of “creationist” interpretations of scientific observations and “evolutionist” interpretations of scientific observations. The film does not accurately nor justly deal with the “creationist” world view at all. The reviewer recommends that one find appropriate materials (videos, films, books) which provide a better comparison of the two world views or find materials—from each world view---which present those world views well.
Gary Underhill, Ph.D.
 |
|
18 Comments
Lori Mayberry
7/7/2012 08:15:51 am
Great review, Julieanne! I am impressed at how you have taught your girls to think critically and logically. I'd like to know what materials you have used to aid in that process. We are attempting the same with our children. What an almost lost art in today's world! Their attempt to trick you into watching it so that they can deceive you has back-fired. hehehe. I'm reposting your review, if I'm able.
Keep up the good work, Julieanne!
Lori
Julieanne
7/8/2012 03:53:51 pm
Lori, thank you. For many years, we just talked about so many things that we saw in the newspaper, heard on the news, and saw that came in the mail. Once, I received this scam from a fake religious type of group that claimed that the piece of paper included in the mailing that was photocopied to look like a prayer rug was supposed to be a special, blessed prayer rug for Christians to use when praying. Of course, they wanted people to send in money to the organization so that their prayers would be heard "more." Ha!
I showed it to the girls, and we read through the literature together. I acted all excited and like it was an amazing, miraculous ministry that this group had. The girls got sucked into thinking it was so great - they became excited, too! Then, I started showing them the specific, anti-biblical phrases and wording in the papers that came in the package, and it was really an eye-opening experience for them. I thought they would be upset with me for this learning experience, but they were very grateful to be shown how easily groups can propagandize others with the right wording.
When we see people holding up protest signs, we talk about the illogical concepts sometimes presented on those signs.
This last school year, we did use and review a logic program about informal fallacies or informal logical argumentation, and it was good, but at the high school level and a bit over Brittany's head. Kelsi read through the entire program, though, and she has already used it quite a bit to point out fallacies and false statements to us. It's been quite interesting.
But other than that, Lori, we haven't done a lot more than talking tons and tons about how to spot false statements and untruths, and why they are not true. I'm sure you've done tons of the same with your children, without even really thinking about it.
The important thing is to teach them the "why" behind the statement, and not to just leave it at a false statement.
7/8/2012 08:30:04 am
Wow, good review. I had heard of the movie briefly, I will now make a point of not seeing it. I see no need to willingly seek out false teachings that are contary to God and the Bible.
Roger Shipman
7/8/2012 12:28:40 pm
Critical thinking is so important! I appreciate you watching this movie so I don't have to before recommending against it. @Lori: thanks for bringing this to my attention.
Storielle
7/10/2012 02:40:41 pm
While I see your point about the propaganda being anti-christian, and I agree that we must be critical before accepting any information, especially from a fictional story, I just want to point out that what a person thinks about the interpretation of the Genesis timetable (while it poses an interesting debate) does not determine salvation. I see people can be mislead by this film because it is not a Christian film and I have no desire to see it because it would annoy me to see Christians portraid so unintelligently. I also want to point out that the Big Bang Theory is just a theory, after all. Many arguments arise when people accept theories as fact, as many non-christians tend to do because it is easier. Many Christians fall into this trap when they are trying to convince non-believers who defend their views with "science". As Christians we need to be careful when we try to argue against science because science that we understand as humans is only the tip of the iceberg compared with our all-knowing Creator and there is no way we understand enough to explain it to someone who does not believe. I was a science major in college (a very liberal college) and learning about life and physics only reinforced my faith in God's creation. The more I learned about the intricacies of atomic structures and DNA organization, the more I marveled at the perfect design that not in a hundred billion years could have been created on accident. We don't need facts, we need faith. If it could be proven then it wouldn't be faith. If we could earn it, it wouldn't be grace.
Sara R
7/10/2012 02:51:29 pm
You should go review it at IMDB because they need a Christian perspective of the movie. People on there are calling it a "Christian Movie" and by your account it is most definitely not.
Serena
7/14/2012 06:37:10 am
Wow! Thank you so much for the insight into this movie! Not one worth wasting my time on, but one that others need to be warned about for sure. ..."be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."
Matthew 10:16
7/23/2012 01:17:15 am
I disagree with you completely. We showed this movie at our church last night and every single person said the sinners prayer with me at the end of the movie. Some for the first time and some as a re dedication. I perceive your judgments to be very narrow and closed minded. 1 Timothy 2:3-4 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.- Let's be careful that we don't make the way so narrow that we actually hinder many from knowing the Lord.
Julieanne Miller
7/30/2012 04:01:26 pm
Diane, thank you for coming here and expressing your opinion. I'm always open to listening to what others have to say, even if I don't agree.
Your comment mystifies me, though. Are you saying that every single person in the room prayed to accept Christ? I find this amazing, because the movie does not mention Christ's name or His work in Creation at all - not one word about Jesus Christ. This movie could not lead anyone TO Christ. Only someone pointing out the falsities in this movie, and then pointing people in the audience TO Christ could lead to a saving faith in Jesus Christ. This movie could lead someone to acknowledge that there is a Creator, and acknowledge that He did some of the work in the Creation process, but this movie is purely theistic evolution, and nothing else.
Jesus also had very narrow judgments. He was very clear on what salvation is, what it stands for, why He decided to give up His life for all of humanity, and how to gain salvation. The Genesis Code does not address any of that, whatsoever.
I want many to come to a true, saving faith in Jesus Christ.
I do not want people to become so confused about what a "day" is in Genesis that they begin to place more faith in scientific theories than the true facts of God and what He has done for us. In all cases in The Genesis Code, when they viewed a "conflict" between science and the Bible, science always won out. This is anti-Christian and anti-biblical, and I stick to my views as originally stated in this post.
Astrophysicist
9/22/2012 05:35:03 am
I find it funny that two people with such differing religious views can come to a similar final conclusion (To not recommend the movie to Christians or Non-Christians), yet differ so much on how we got there or the underlying message and/or and conclusions the film attempts to portray. To be fair - I will immediately throw it out there that I have a B.S. in Astrophysics, a M.S. in Engineering and happen to be a member of Mensa (although non-participating) for many many years now. I am also now an atheist, having once considered myself a born again Christian. I state this not to come off as trying to sound superior but only only to be honest and demonstrate where I drew my conclusions from, and how I also felt the movie attacks anyone that doesn't share their beliefs. And also, by the way...if you haven't seen it, my review does contain spoilers....
I will agree with you that the film does not at all mention Jesus Christ, or the way to salvation as mentioned in the bible. But I didn't think that was the point of the movie. I believe it was primarily targeted at a larger, Judeo-Christian and Monotheistic audience, basically those people who claim and perhaps truely do believe in God, but generally don't go to church very often, are not really accepting that the path of Christianity is through Jesus. I felt like this was a cowardly attack by those pushing "Intelligent Design". I believe the people pushing "Intelligent Design" are disingenuous Christians who believe the ends justify the means even if that includes lying or distorting facts to get more people to doubt science.
The movie to gave me a completely different conclusion as to the goal of the movie. I didn't see it as a means to present a theistic evolution as truth. Quite the contrary, I found it as a way to slyly introduce intelligent design as truth. Not all at once and not conclusively, but as a way of slowly chipping away and sowing seeds of doubt into the minds of the audience as to what our best current scientific explanations are for the origin of the universe, our planet, and evolution, If you watched closely you will notice that all the major buzz-words of the modern anti-evolution, pro-intelligent design argument were stated verbatim. I found it interesting to see that while you found the propaganda slated towards science, I saw it completely slated the other way. For example for me, when Kerry is discussing evolution with her professor using the story of Genesis, she was able to completely stump her him using the the words of Darwin and the idea of a finding a watch and knowing it had to be created by a watchmaker (The current classic proof of intelligent design). Or that the professor continuing to answer that there was no scientific proof to creationism, yet he couldn't refute or answer Kerry's basic questions and could only answer to her "That's very good Kerry..." And later in the film the same professor when trying to share his definition of faith, states right out of the intelligent design handbook "I believe in micro-evolution, we see that in nature all the time, but that doesn't mean I believe in macro-evolution". It was out of place when it was said and totally seemed to me to be pushing the correctness of intelligent design argument, all the while discrediting evolution as something that Darwin came up with and there has been no other supporting evidence since he wrote "Origin of the Species". Similarly, The limited character development was so so over the top it bordered on lunacy . Kerry's college advisor was portrayed as a smug arrogant professor preaching a new world order without religion, where people are free to do what they want and cultures could decide what religion was right for them. I actually thought they were going to subliminally put horns on her head while she was telling Kerry she needed to give up her religion if she wanted to go to grad-school. Meanwhile, Kerry's father, the minister, comes across as the level headed, logical thinker (as he is easily able to talk her advisor into a corner), strong and powerful (he can bench press 400+ lbs all the while looking like your typical overweight American with a large belly and skinny arms - That is so much weight, it could have been 150 lbs less and it still would have been rediculous!). He is accurate and articulate, able to defend his beliefs (not to mention he can shoot 6 rounds from a revolver with about a 3 inch spread at 50 feet in like 2 seconds). To me it was a gross characterization that the institution of college was so left leaning liberal that the professors couldn't know right from wrong or fight their way out of a paper bag while the gun toting, super strong Minister and Kerry knew the truth.
I also disagree with the assertion that the science in the film hasn't been proven, but perhaps we are coming to the same conclusion, just in a different manner. The main focus of the film and how they can adjust the 6 days of Genesi
"Astrophysicist", it looks like your reply was accidentally cut off somehow (not by me or this website), and you do bring up a few good points I hadn't thought about...the preacher "lifting" 400 lbs., etc., and the subliminal "horns" that could have been placed on the college advisor...all things that make the movie even less believable.
We are definitely coming from two different points of view, but I appreciate you stating your opinions in a respectful manner.
My family all felt that Kerry's father, the minister, had few answers to things that he should have been able to easily explain from a biblical point of view. I know 14-year-olds who could have answered questions better than he did in the movie, and I'm not trying to be sarcastic when writing that.
I do know of professors and college advisors who come from left field so far left that they choose to give Fs to students who disagree with them. I know of professors my friends have had at our local community college who don't give a hoot what anyone else thinks - and they proudly lord it over the students. So much for free thinking and discussion that should be taking place at colleges! I know of professors other friends have had who use the F word in every other sentence. All of those things are so not conducive to education and actual learning and true thinking.
I chose to attend a truly Christian private college so I wouldn't have to spend four years defending my Christian faith - and so we could have intelligent and free thinking discussions in my classes without students being ridiculed! I feel sorry for Christian students who waste four years of time and money sitting in classes that are completely opposed to their own biblical worldview.
Thanks for stopping by.
Astrophysicist
9/22/2012 05:18:52 pm
I'll attach the rest as I still had it in a word document. In short, I have some very good, highly intelligent friends debate with me the validity of not only the story of creationism but several others as well. While I more often than not, disagree with their arguments and conclusions, I still respect their viewpoints and how they came about them, and I completely admit to still learning new things during the discussions. My biggest problem is with the argument of intelligent design. Having not too long ago considering myself a Born again Christian, I have met many people pushing this theory, which is truly just re badged creationism, but it gave the promoters of the theory Carte-Blanche to lie, deceive, ridicule as if the ends justifies the means. I knew for a fact then and I suspect it is still true today that the people pushing this theory know the basic tenets of evolution cold yet they won't hesitate to lie about evolution if it swings people towards their side.
Anyway, I do also understand about college, and I'm glad you found somewhere you felt comfortable. I'm actually married to a university professor (well, now former professor as she gave it up a year ago), but if you thought 4 years was bad... I had 8 or 9 years having to associate with professors. The problem is that about half the professors are just super, bright, wonderful people, and the other half are self centered, arrogant, deceptive, and manipulative, all trying to claw their way to the top. And that is true no matter what their religious beliefs are. They will eat their own to get higher up the chain. Sadly, as long as current pay system, tenure structure and the way salaries are tied to how much money you bring into the department instead of how well the students learn, things are not going to change.
Take care and if I could ask just one thing - remember your discrimination at the hands of those who disagreed with your beliefs. I've never seen people's attitudes change towards us as quickly as when they find out we are atheists. I'm the same person I was two years ago. just with a changed opinion.
Cheers and Good Luck - Here comes the rest of the review.
Astrophysicist
9/22/2012 05:19:02 pm
I'll attach the rest as I still had it in a word document. In short, I have some very good, highly intelligent friends debate with me the validity of not only the story of creationism but several others as well. While I more often than not, disagree with their arguments and conclusions, I still respect their viewpoints and how they came about them, and I completely admit to still learning new things during the discussions. My biggest problem is with the argument of intelligent design. Having not too long ago considering myself a Born again Christian, I have met many people pushing this theory, which is truly just re badged creationism, but it gave the promoters of the theory Carte-Blanche to lie, deceive, ridicule as if the ends justifies the means. I knew for a fact then and I suspect it is still true today that the people pushing this theory know the basic tenets of evolution cold yet they won't hesitate to lie about evolution if it swings people towards their side.
Anyway, I do also understand about college, and I'm glad you found somewhere you felt comfortable. I'm actually married to a university professor (well, now former professor as she gave it up a year ago), but if you thought 4 years was bad... I had 8 or 9 years having to associate with professors. The problem is that about half the professors are just super, bright, wonderful people, and the other half are self centered, arrogant, deceptive, and manipulative, all trying to claw their way to the top. And that is true no matter what their religious beliefs are. They will eat their own to get higher up the chain. Sadly, as long as current pay system, tenure structure and the way salaries are tied to how much money you bring into the department instead of how well the students learn, things are not going to change.
Take care and if I could ask just one thing - remember your discrimination at the hands of those who disagreed with your beliefs. I've never seen people's attitudes change towards us as quickly as when they find out we are atheists. I'm the same person I was two years ago. just with a changed opinion.
Cheers and Good Luck - Here comes the rest of the review.
Astrophysicist
9/22/2012 05:29:45 pm
I'll attach the rest as I still had it in a word document. In short, I have some very good, highly intelligent friends debate with me the validity of not only the story of creationism but several others as well. While I more often than not, disagree with their arguments and conclusions, I still respect their viewpoints and how they came about them, and I completely admit to still learning new things during the discussions. My biggest problem is with the argument of intelligent design. Having not too long ago considering myself a Born again Christian, I have met many people pushing this theory, which is truly just re-badged creationism, but it gave the promoters of the theory Carte Blanche to lie, deceive, ridicule as if the ends justifies the means. I knew for a fact it was true just a couple of years ago, so I suspect it is still true today that the people pushing this know the basic tenets of evolution quite extensively yet they won't hesitate to lie about evolution in their arguments if it swings people towards their side.
Anyway, I do also understand about college, and I'm glad you found somewhere you felt comfortable. I'm actually married to a university professor (well, now former professor as she gave it up a year ago), but if you thought 4 years was bad... I had 8 or 9 years having to associate with professors. The problem is about half of the professors are just super, bright, wonderful people, and the other half are self centered, arrogant, deceptive, and manipulative, all trying to claw their way to the top. Regardless of their religious beliefs. Sadly, as long as current pay system, tenure structure and the way salaries are tied to how much money you bring into the department instead of how well the students learn, things are not going to change. And those that make it to the top truly do have absolute power as to what they can teach, what textbooks they can use, with absolutely no over site.
Take care and if I could ask just one thing - remember your discrimination at the hands of those who disagreed with your beliefs. I've never seen people's attitudes change towards us as quickly as when they find out we are atheists. I'm the same person I was two years ago. just with a changed opinion.
Cheers and Good Luck - Here comes the rest of the review.
Astrophysicist
9/22/2012 05:39:36 pm
Sorry - looks like I made up for my post being cut off. Hopefully you can edit them out. My review continues:
The main focus of the film and how they can adjust the 6 days of Genesis with the billions of years science has deduced is time dilation through either relativistic speeds, gravitational forces, and the expansion of space. Time dilation has been proven to be correct time and time again. In fact, If you use a GPS, you are using a device that has time dilation error correction built in. (In fact the first GPS satellites were launched with two sets of software because some scientists at the time still didn't believe in time dilation, but if it was not included, the satellites would start to send erroneous data deviating from the norm by as much as 7 miles a day. Anyway, while time dilation is a measured normal property of our universe, The mathematics and the limitation it would impose on God make it hard for me to believe Christians would buy this theory.
I will agree with you though that while the explanation of the Big Bang was generally correct, The timescale that they used for formation of matter, galaxies, stars, planets, etc. was being fudged quite a bit to try to fit their explanation. Similarly, they were disingenuous with the treatment of the bible. If you watch that section closely (it's in the trailer) they read the book of Genesis for a couple of days that they feel closely fit their model, but on other days, they only summarize what happened, leaving out statements that would cause direct contradictions to their model. It's as if they thought scientists wouldn't notice the incorrect science, and Christians wouldn't notice the errors in what was created on what day in Genesis.
Again, I disagree with your final conclusion, that this was produced by evolutionists and are “anti-creationists”. In my opinion, this was a concerted effort by the people attempting to propagate the theory of intelligent design. When defending my belief of the Big Bang, the origins of life, and evolution (which are three totally different arguments), I will completely admit that there are many things that "I simply don't know", perhaps though science one day we will. I disagree with the story of creation told in the Bible. But I at least respect Christians that are honest with their beliefs and where they get them from. I find the whole Intelligent Design movement nothing more that disingenuous Christians who knowingly misrepresent science and facts to further their argument. I do agree with your final statement and would agree with your conclusion that there are much better materials and places to look which don't distort the facts on either side of the argument.
Cheers - Sorry for the multiple posts.
Tina
10/30/2012 04:50:35 am
Wow, such a captivating discussion! I do not blog as a general rule because it proves so unproductive but I am compelled to respond (and beg responses). I was totally taken in by the movie because I am not a scientist and only recently gave my life to Christ.I thought it was poorly acted (cheesy)and have not recommended it but I wanted so much to see science and the bible reasonably merged that I was ripe to be fooled as many are. I have little knowledge in the way of the trivium since I received a marginal public education and I am still a new Christian so I failed to notice most of Julienne's observations. Right before I viewed Genesis Code, I had just viewed the Intelligent Design trilogy (Darwin's Dilemma, Privileged Planet, and Unlocking the Mystery of Life) and agree with Astrophysicist that the movie was replete with the their locution.However, the movie does such a poor job disseminating the Intelligent Design theory it is difficult to believe they are the conspirators behind the film. Actually, I tend to agree more with Julieanne that the conspirators were actually promoting theistic evolution, albeit a very confused and poorly assembled theory. Anyhow, I am in a place where it would take more than something "scientific" to undo or cinch my faith. Scientific understanding changes and grows, it is nothing to be used as a foundation for a transcendent world view. I would LOVE to understand how someone as objectively intelligent as Astrophysicist concluded that a life outside of Christ was preferable. Possibly Astrophysicist was but a seed that fell among the rocks or thorns. I have a question for Astrophysicist... when you say the intelligent design proponents "know the basic tenets of evolution quite extensively yet they won't hesitate to lie about evolution in their arguments if it swings people towards their side." Which tenants of evolution are they lying about? Please, I am asking objectively. I must understand what science has given you over to denounce the existence of God. Perhaps I missed the definitive discovery that proves I am, in fact, an evolved monkey and that God is unnecessary to explain the origin & meaning of life. I am not being snotty; I have been quite oblivious to much in my pagan existence up to this point. Christ was the catalyst for my recent lucidity. Admittedly, I spend my time viewing everything through a biblical lens but am not unable to see things from any other lens, if only for the purpose of discussion. I am making my way through "Evolution- The Triumph of an Idea" by Zimmer in an attempt to understand what evolutionary theory proposes in detail. I am curious what, for you, is so compelling about it?
Cheryl
12/5/2012 09:59:22 am
Thank you so much for the review. I was watching it and my 13 yo son was watching off & on with me. We both picked up the scene where the counselor (or whatever her profession was) was chastising the lead character for her faith The blatant way she twisted, "when I was a child...." and went on to say that she needed to embrace all religions was sadly true of what is happening in our culture today. I stopped watching at the "big bang" scene. I searched for a review on Pluggedin.com but found nothing, so I truly appreciate you sharing your review!!
Ashley
2/5/2013 04:31:22 am
Coming from the perspective of a like-minded believer I think that your review is spot on. I only wish I would have read your review before I wasted 2+ hours of my life. At the time of filming my husband and I lived in the small town where a large portion of the movie was filmed. We were so excited that a "Christian" movie was being filmed in our town and we couldn't wait to see it. And then in the hustle and bustle of moving to a new town we forgot about it until it recently popped up as a suggested title in our Netflix account.
We are no stranger to lower budget family friendly/Christian movies as my husband's parents attend a church that has a family who makes Christian movies so I set my expectations accordingly. Unfortunately I was so disappointed. The way the female lead flirted with a non-believer, the lack of Biblical truth presented (i.e. Jesus as the only way to salvation), the "science", it all saddened me greatly!
During the portion where the brother is giving his Genesis Code speech I said to my husband, "If I didn't already know and understand the truth I could easily be convinced to buy into this idea". For those with a limited background in Bible truths this wraps up the controversy in a neat little package with a pretty bow on top. I really wanted to stop the movie, but I just couldn't make myself, I needed to see the rest of it.
Of particular annoyance to me was the complete lack of teaching about Jesus and his atonement for our sins. That is the basis for everything I, as a Christian, believe and it is of the utmost importance in my life. However most of the Christian ideals presented in the movie were free floating with no real context or explanation given as to why they were believed or used. To me it was almost as if someone who wasn't a Christian sat down and said, now in this circumstance what would a Christian do, for example how would they react to a more liberally minded person. The characters seemed more to be stereotypes than believable human beings.
Like you said, I don't see how anyone could come to a saving faith through this movie. That, to me, is very sad indeed, especially because the reverend in the movie is a real life pastor to two local churches within 45 minutes of where I live. It's a cute movie, and interesting in it's own way, but to be presented as a factual, Christian movie is misleading. Thank you again for your review, I'm glad I found it even if it was halfway through the movie ;-)
Leave a Reply.
Hi! I'm Julieanne!
You'll find me in the kitchen
trying new Trim Healthy Mama recipes, loving God, and carrying out that love as I bless my husband and teen daughters.
Find
Joy In Our Journey on:
Sign up to receive
Joy In Our Journey's
latest blog posts, freebies, and more!
Joy In Our Journey's
latest blog posts, freebies, and more!
I'd love to share your product with my readers. If you would like me to do a review and giveaway, just contact me via email and let me know how I can help.
Disclosure: Some content includes links to sponsors or affiliates, which
give me a small percentage of the sale without costing you anything
extra. You are not obligated to use these links when you make a
purchase, but when you do so, it helps to support this site, so thank
you!
Search
Joy In Our Journey
Loading
Archives
December 2016
August 2015
July 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
Photos used under Creative Commons from jaakko.hakulinen, theglobalpanorama, Sarah Korf, jeffreyw, crayonmonkey, Joshua Singh, Sam Howzit, kimberlyac, miggslives, rust.bucket, Derick Leony, Big D2112, Violette79, Andrea.Pacheco, youngthousands, niiicedave, mommyknows, Dominic's pics, sleepyneko, madaise, Daquella manera, Arild Andersen, TounoTouji, jchapiewsky, dennis, cooper.gary, supersum (off), advisorymatters, Nomadic Lass, Effervescing Elephant, ralph and jenny, alubavin, brendan-c, ImNotQuiteJack, jeffreyw, iamlemonfilm, Colin_K, Andrew Michaels, ivoryelephantphotography, bennylin0724, Jo Naylor, daveoratox, f10n4, Bludgeoner86, Ack Ook, BiblioArchives / LibraryArchives, pylbug, limaoscarjuliet, Barbara L. Hanson, CapitalK buy design, Vibragiel, matthiasxc, Podknox, qnr, Sadie_Girl, ComputerHotline, pppspics, Anna Loverus, Joi, Rob.Bertholf, Sheyla Ruiz, nachans, ♥serendipity, IsaacMao, *cart-wheels*, TRFPhotography, vxla, lisaclarke, Missouri History Museum, doortoriver, sunshinecity, anna gutermuth, USCPSC, L. Allen Brewer, bluebirdsandteapots, ell brown, vestman, *PaysImaginaire*, mightyohm, Lars Plougmann, Alex_Lewis116, yoppy, HealthGauge, 401(K) 2013, aprilandrandy, Ben Sutherland, Mason Masteka, WillowGardeners, MStewartPhotography, “Caveman Chuck” Coker, kodomut, DanCentury, TrishaLyn, Katie@!, Looking Glass, Nicholas_T, Francis Storr, Allie_Caulfield, Creative Tools, Aidan Jones, Tim Brown Architecture, HerryLawford, Brett Levin Photography, Gudlyf, Chocolate Reviews, greggoconnell, EmilyWhitwam, Phú Thịnh Co, ilovememphis, cliff1066™, Chi King, erix!, Tony Fischer Photography, GlasgowAmateur, ktylerconk, cfourcalvin, David Locke, blhphotography, dominiqs, quinet, stevendepolo, surlygirl, guzzphoto, mikebaird, rich701, coolmikeol, procsilas, • Happy Batatinha •, pmarkham, Luz Adriana Villa A., LisaW123, fireballsedai, CJS*64, gagilas, Christian Haugen, freddie boy, tausend und eins, fotografik, roland, nedradio, makelessnoise, Salvation Army USA West, TheAlieness GiselaGiardino²³, Arenamontanus, 401(K) 2013, f_mafra, trippingbobcat, brooklyn, Viajar24h.com, yanajenn, jamieanne, hardworkinghippy, ccharmon, eofstr, Julia Manzerova, jhoc, Orin Zebest, battlecreekcvb, jmrodri, trekkyandy, timsnell, Salil Wadhavkar, ewen and donabel, Ted Van Pelt, David Paul Ohmer, Kevin May, CCAC North Library, I_Nneska, AlphaTangoBravo / Adam Baker, dwstucke, Bonnie B., elise.y, Bill Selak, sam_churchill, JD Hancock, olga.palma, cbr_case, acme, alyak, creating in the dark, TrishaLyn, jacilluch, hans s, cwwycoff1, Karen Roe, AlexiUeltzen, surrelmar, Jeff Kubina, rich701, adie reed, pacificbro, dwstucke, rharrison, avlxyz, Jim, the Photographer, Danndalf, storebukkebruse, rodaniel, dicktay2000, exfordy, torres21, Mr. T in DC, avlxyz, andrealindenberg, HarshLight, stevendepolo, publicenergy, Jan Tik, aechempati, ume-y, xfce, Pink Sherbet Photography, nlian, bittle, bradleygee, rs-foto, JamieDrakePhotos, SimonDoggett, slopjop, Norman B. Leventhal Map Center at the BPL, BozDoz, GoRun26, prettyinprint, WTL photos, Minnesota Historical Society, www.bluewaikiki.com, stevendepolo, LibAmanda, jspatchwork, Jinx!, ncmichael2k3, Clevergrrl, michaelkmak, Generationbass.com, Dougtone, roger4336, slgckgc, twicepix, lisatozzi, Lee Nachtigal, Kevin Lawver, brianfuller6385, jamieanne, quinn.anya, SupremeCrete, StockMonkeys.com, OliverN5, jeffreyw, Muffet, krossbow, fdecomite, JeepersMedia, jimmiehomeschoolmom, Zanastardust, joyosity, frotzed2, szapucki, Vincent van der Pas, normalityrelief, Emily Carlin, Clevergrrl, allyrose18, sleepyneko, Jeff Kubina, efleming, Artman1122, notjustsquirrels, PhotoAtelier, roolrool, onnola, Charles Williams, greggoconnell, Highway Patrol Images, andrechinn, loop_oh, ayustety, toinerooijmans, vmiramontes, Claricethebakergardener, mind on fire, jimmiehomeschoolmom, Kat Johnston / Sanura Sakai, toinerooijmans, rfduck, stu_spivack, OmegaPoint, ingridtaylar, AdamSelwood, Gog Llundain, pbody
