In the Beginning:  Science and Genesis 1-11

Class Ten - Genesis 5, Methuselah and Genetic Entropy

We have just seen that even evolutionists state  Neo-Darwinism has no theory of the generative, so it is certainly not the fundamental concept underlying all of biology.  So what is being taught as fact to our public school students is false.  But beyond that, there is another fundamental error in that standard, an error that was made deliberately.   What do you think that is?

The error is the failure to define the term evolution!  I personally know a member of the science sub-committee that developed this standard.  He specifically requested the committee to make a distinction in the standard between micro and macro evolution and they refused!  Why do you think they refused?  With a fuzzy definition of the word “evolution” they can make the dogmatic statement in Standard 15.  For example, the statement evolution is false and a fairy tale for adults is a true statement.  The statement that evolution is true and consistent with the Bible is also a true statement.  The law of non-contradiction would say that both of these cannot be true, but we of course are talking about micro evolution and macro evolution, one of which is true and one of which is false.

Standard 15 PP

then states in one of the underlying benchmarks – 15:1: PP


 “Explain how evolution is supported by the fossil record…”  The clear implication there is that the fossil record supports evolution.  As you will soon see in this course, that is patently false. 

Relative to macro-evolution, this quote from Malcolm Muggeridge in The End of Christendom is appropriate: PP

“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in history books in the future.  Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.”

Before we go to our next topic, let’s have PP



another quiz - on nothing we’ve covered.  Again, you can grade yourself. PP

The tallest man alive today is over 8’ tall.  Who was the tallest man in the Bible? a) Adam, b) Noah, c) King Og or d) Goliath?]  Relative to King Og PP


-   Deuteronomy 3:11 (PP King Og’s bed 9 cubits long x 4 cubits wide -13.5’ x 6’); PP Goliath - 1 Samuel 17:4 PP

-   (Height 6 cubits & 1 span - 9’9”).  While we are all aware of the long ages of men in the Bible before the Great Flood, we don’t give much thought to their stature.  They were big, folks!  Tracks from the Great Flood era found in Texas

PP x2




show size 25 human prints next to those of dinosaurs.  Noah was probably taller than either Goliath or King Og. Adam was of course the first man to feel the effects of sin on his body.  Adam therefore was probably taller than Noah as he was not born with the effects of sin in his body.  Some people postulate that Adam may have been 16 feet tall!  Dinosaurs may not have looked so huge to someone that size.  And we’ve already seen PP


evidence that dinosaurs lived common with man.

We are now PP


at Genesis 5, the genealogy of the first generations of man.  Genesis 5 lists the ten Biblical patriarchs prior to the Great Flood.  Rather than read the whole chapter, I’ve listed four verses that make the point we want to address scientifically:  PP 1. “This is the book of the generations of Adam.  In the day when God created man.  He made him in the likeness of God. PP 5.  So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died. PP 8.  So all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years, and he died. PP 27.  So all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred and sixty nine years, and he died.”

Obviously we see great longevity in each of these.  Before we get to that, there is another question we need to ask.  Why did they die at all?  Recall my comments regarding Genesis 1:8, which states PP:


“And God called the expanse heaven.”  I related that to Genesis 1:31where God stated everything He had made was very good.  I suggested to you that the earth at this time was in fact heaven on earth.  That God created man to live forever before the Fall, and it’s reasonable to think that prior to the corruption of sin that led to death the earth would have been man’s heaven.  So in that scenario, if earth at that time was in fact to be heaven on earth to man, who was made to live forever, why these short time spans relative to forever?  Of course we can only conjecture here.  Perhaps God turned on entropy in man after the fall.  Entropy is a scientific term which, put simply, means that everything trends towards disorder.    We certainly see that trend in a lot of the bodies in this room!  The opposite possibility, that God simply didn’t provide something to ensure man lived forever, is addressed in Genesis 3:22-23:  PP


“Then the Lord God said, ‘Behold the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever.’ – therefore  the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden…”  So God could have simply withheld the “fruit” from the tree of life, immediately beginning the decline in man’s longevity.

But as we read those few verses of Genesis 5, you of course weren’t pondering why they lived such short lives.  You were pondering how they could have lived such long lives as viewed in the context of the current average life span of man.  I would venture to guess that very few in this room have not in their minds questioned these ages even while believing in the inerrancy of Scripture.  Tonight we are going to put those questions to rest scientifically.  By the way, long pre-Flood ages are not unique to the Bible.  A “kings list” excavated near Babel tells of ten kings that also lived great ages before the Flood.

Before we look at the scientific evidence, let’s look PP




at the lives of the patriarchs and make some interesting observations.  I’ve drawn a line PP at the Great Flood.  Notice that Methuselah died in the year of the Flood.  Methuselah means in Hebrew, “he died and then it came”, or “when he dies, judgment.”  We know from verse 27 that Methuselah lived longer than any other man PP – 969 years.  We also note that he died in PP 1656, which is the year of the Great Flood.  But note that Adam lived PP 930 years and since Methuselah was born in the PP 687th year after creation that he and Adam had a common period of 243 (930-687) years that they lived in close proximity to each other.  Note also that Noah was born PP 1056 years after creation and of his 950 years, 600 (1656-1056) were common with Methuselah and in fact Noah was born only 126 years after Adam died, and also note that was alive when everyone on this chart after the Flood, except the last two, was born.

Again, I can’t be dogmatic about this, but I think the first part of Genesis, certainly the section on creation and the fall, was written down by Adam under the divine inspiration of God, passed on through Methuselah to Noah, who carried it onto the Ark.   Only our evolutionized minds, which have been taught to think early man lived in caves and was completely ignorant, would have us doubt that possibility.  But I believe my position is buttressed by the first verse of Genesis 5:  PP


“This is the book of the generations of Adam.”  This by the way is the first reference in the Bible to a book.  As we move to Genesis 6 verse 5 tells us:  PP


“Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”  That led to God saying to Noah in verse 13:  PP


“Then God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them, and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth.”  Verse 3 of Genesis 5 indicates that Noah had a 120 year warning regarding the Flood and verse 18 strongly implied that only the only people that would definitely be on the ark was Noah and seven others of his family.  I don’t think it is coincidental that none of the patriarchs died in the Flood.  In fact, the death of one of them could have triggered the Flood.  So Noah had plenty of time to gather written information to take across the divide of the Flood as he knew that all life, and all records of that life and how it arose, that did not enter the ark would be destroyed.

Relative to God’s directive for everything  to be vegetarian before the Flood, there is a potential conflict in Genesis 4 which states in verses 2 & 4: PP


“…And Abel was a keeper of flocks, but Cain was a tiller of the ground…And Abel, on hi part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions.”  Does that somehow indicate that man was eating meat before the Flood.  Actually those verses simply show that man, following God’s example, used animal skins (specifically sheepskins) to cloth themselves and that Abel kept a flock of sheep to provide clothing for Adam and his descendants and made offerings to the Lord from the best of that flock.

Another question revolves around my statement that none of the patriarchs died in the Flood.  Methuselah died in the year of the Flood, and Adam and Seth, who were born before the Flood, survived on the Ark.  I didn’t address the patriarchs offspring, so did they die in the Flood?  We can’t be dogmatic on this, but I would assume so.  Lamech, the father of Noah, died in 1651, five years before the Flood.  All Genesis 5 says is that he had other sons and daughters.  Recall that Genesis 6:5 states that “every intent of the thoughts of his heart (man’s) was only evil continually.”  Obviously those hearts had to come from the offspring of the patriarchs.  I have heard estimates of the number of people in existence at the Flood ranging in the millions to the billions!


But back to the lives of the patriarchs; notice that those long ages begin to decline rapidly after the Flood.  We see that Shem only lived to 600, Shelah to 433, Peleg to 239, Abraham to 175 and Jacob to “only” 147.   Here’s a PP






graph reflecting that decline, and here PP

again is a line delineating the pre-Flood ages from the post-Flood ages.  But even attaining 147 years would be impossible today.  Even Psalm 90, which was written by Moses, not David, tells us in verse 10:  PP


“As for the days of our life, they contain seventy years, or if due to strength, eighty years…”  So by the time of Moses life expectancy approximated what we experience today.  Of course there are exceptions to that.  My mother died four months before her 100th birthday in 2010, but that is by far an exception, and she would be been delighted to have gone to be with the Lord at least a decade earlier.

But let’s get to the issue at hand, which actually is the impact genetics has on longevity.  Genetics is defined as


PP “the branch of biology that deals with the principles and mechanisms of heredity and with the genetic contribution to similarities and differences among related organisms.”  The material we are going to discuss is addressed effectively, and generally at a layman’s level, in the book PP


Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome by Cornell geneticist Dr. John Sanford.  Recall that I said the term entropy, simply put, means that everything tends toward disorder.  Keeping in mind that Neo-Darwinism teaches that natural selection, acting on beneficial mutations, over eons of time, produces new species, tell me what is the significance of Dr. Sanford coupling the term “entropy” with the word “genetic”?  It appears that PP

the title of Dr. Sanford’s book states that genes tend towards disorder, which is diametrically opposed to what evolution teaches!  PP

That’s me in the middle in Vietnam in 1969 as a Marine 1st Lieutenant at the age of 24. I certainly don’t look like that today – genetic entropy at work! PP

To help us understand this, we must get a little technical. We need to understand the difference between

genotype, which is represented here by a DNA strand, and a phenotype.  Think of a genotype as a sentence in an instruction manual.  Evolution states that a mutation in a sentence in that instruction manual (the genome), which over time becomes numerous sentence changes, can effectively rewrite the instruction manual.  However, Dr. Sanford points out in his book, that, while that’s a nice theory, in practice it is impossible.  That’s because in reality all genotypes reside in PP phenotypes, which simply means body structure.  An enormous chasm exists between genotypic change (a molecular mutation) and phenotypic selection (a whole organism’s reproduction).  So-called “Mother Nature” never sees the individual DNA parts.  She just sees the whole organism, so the selection is everything within the organism or none of it!  PP

Natural selection cannot select a “beneficial change” without also selecting the huge number of negative mutations that also exist in the organism.  Natural selection has to take the whole phenotype, with all its genetic changes, or nothing at all!   Yet somehow, despite that insurmountable problem,  over billions of generations natural selection acting on those beneficial mutations would generate a new species.  It’s an interesting theory, especially considering the problems we have already mentioned about natural selection’s inability to select only beneficial mutations.  Also, please note that PP

mutations occur only once in about every ten million duplications of DNA, and then 99% of the time result in the degradation of the organism.  For example, what is a common name we use for mutation?  Cancer! 

The evidence that the evolutionists use to support their position, such a viruses, actually simply provide through the loss of information a temporary benefit to an organism.  So here we have another “just-so” story from the evolutionists that does not fit with the scientific evidence.   Keep in mind that for any supposed beneficial mutation to be effective, it has to be preserved in the organism and then linked with the next beneficial mutation, with the presumption that the next beneficial organism also impacts the same area!  But mutations are random and not directional as would be required in the evolution theory.  

But we just saw that however minute, there is a chance a beneficial mutation could arise.  Dr. Ralph Seelke, a research microbiologist at the University of Wisconsin, Lake Superior, has spent the past twenty or so years trying to mutate e-coli bacteria.  Since they replicate every twenty minutes, he has produced over a million generations of e-coli.  The next two slides are from a presentation on his website regarding the finding of  that research.  In addressing the fact that evolution would require two mutations to occur simultaneously to do its job, he states PP:

Results So Far:  If Evolution Requires Two or More Independent Mutations NOTHING HAPPENS The biological details of Dr. Seelke’s research goes well beyond a layman’s knowledge.  Should you want to delve into that deeper simply Google Dr. Ralph Seelke and you can  see the information on his website.  Suffice it to say that his research shows that the engine for Neo-Darwinism, in concert with the excerpt we read from Origination of Organismal Form, cannot produce changes needed to generate a path to a new species.


Hence, in reality what we see in all organisms is genetic entropy (all things trend towards disorder), not genetic enhancement as Darwinian macroevolution requires.

Dr. J. C. Sanford confirms Dr. Seelke’s research, stating in his book:  PP








“We have reviewed compelling evidence that even when ignoring deleterious mutations, mutation/selection cannot create a single gene – not within the human evolutionary timescale.  PP









When deleterious mutations are factored back in, we see that mutation/selection cannot create a single gene – ever.  This is overwhelming evidence against the Primary Axiom.  PP

In my opinion this constitutes what is essentially a formal proof that the Primary Axiom is false.”   Dr. Sanford defines PP













the Primary Axiom as the belief that “man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection.”  His opinion has been corroborated by Dr. (x3) Jerry Bergman, author of The Slaughter of the Dissidents, who performed a literature search in 2004 on beneficial mutations.  He found 453,732 hits on the word “mutation,” but only 186 of those mentioned the word beneficial, and in all those cases the discussion involved loss-of-function changes. PP






He was unable to find a single example in the scientific literature of a mutation which unambiguously created new information. 

And relative to the long ages set for in Genesis 5, Dr. Sanford states in Genetic Entropy:  PP

“Genetic damage results in aging, and aging shortens lifespan…Logically we should conclude that if all of this is true, then at some time in the past there must have been a time when there was less genetic damage in the genome, and thus longer lives, and less deleterious effects from inbreeding.  Is there any evidence of this.  PP


This chart from Dr. Sanford’s book, Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, shows a match between the biological decay curve (increasing mutations in each successive generation) and the Biblical genealogies it tracks beginning 400 years after Noah (from Shem through Jacob and ending with the average middle ages life span of 40) with a correlation of .90, and therefore PP confirms scientifically the Biblical record!  PP




Dr. Sanford states in Genetic Entropy:  “We are forced to conclude that the writer of Genesis either faithfully recorded an exponential decay of human life spans, or the author fabricated the data using sophisticated mathematical modeling.” 

What you should take away from this discussion is two things PP:



1)  The long ages set forth in the Bible are confirmed scientifically by genetics.  PP

2)  Genetic entropy falsifies Darwinian evolution.

Furthermore, genetic entropy means that each succeeding generation has more genetic deleterious mutations than the preceding generation.  So you have more mutations than your parents and your offspring, if any, will have more than you.  Carry that to its logical conclusion and over time those mutations become fatal to a species.