|Home → Theatrical Releases → The Genesis Code - DVD||My Account | Cart Contents | Checkout|
The Genesis Code DVD
Stock Status: In Stock
Only 1 left, order now!
Updated: 5/17/2013 3:07pm PDT
Where spiritual faith and scientific fact find common ground
Kerry Wells (Kelsey Sanders), a college journalist and committed Christian with an effervescent personality, has been assigned to do a story on Blake Truman (Logan Bartholomew) the college’s newest and very popular hockey superstar. As a relationship between them begins to develop Kerry finds that Blake, who hides behind a tough and independent façade, is actually struggling through a difficult personal crisis and that he bears the cross of a secret he has kept hidden for years. Blake rebuffs Kerry’s suggestion that prayer might help ease his burden; he is convinced that modern science completely disproves the Bible, especially the opening verses of Genesis. Kerry — who is herself suddenly confronted with a challenge to her faith on another front — sets out to prove that science and Genesis are not in conflict and her quest leads to a startling revelation. Could it be that what science teaches us about creation and the Story as told in Genesis are both true and in perfect accord!
"It is wonderful to find a place to shop for Christian items without the hassel of having to deal with secular advertisements."
- Helen Cina
The Genesis Code DVD Details:
Latest Reviews for The Genesis Code - DVD(View all 11 reviews)
The Genesis Code - DVD – James B, 04/12/2013
(no written review given)
The Genesis Code - DVD – Crystal S, 01/19/2013
(no written review given)
The Genesis Code - DVD – Randy S, 12/27/2012
(no written review given)
The Genesis Code - DVD – Chele W, 11/30/2012
(no written review given)
The Genesis Code - DVD – Cindy P, 10/17/2012
(no written review given)
The Genesis Code - DVD – Scott L, 10/16/2012
(no written review given)
The Genesis Code - DVD – Janet M, 09/28/2012
(no written review given)
The Genesis Code - DVD – Michael J C, 09/11/2012
(no written review given)
The Genesis Code - DVD – Kim P, 09/03/2012
Big premise, big budget but a big mistake!
“The Genesis Code” is a full-featured film that pits the biblical six-day creation against the big bang theory of origins. In this contest, the viewer will notice that “The Genesis Code” never contemplates that the Bible should govern science; rather its presupposition is reversed. It is ‘science’ that is established as a seemingly inerrant source of ultimate truth.
However, science (and there are multiple definitions of what science, and even the ‘scientific method’, actually is anyway) can never be a standard of absolute truth. The sort of science with which most of us are familiar involves watching things happen (observation), and using repeatable experiments. Call it operational, or observational science if you like. But, when we try to understand events of the past, we are asking an historical question, which means that ultimately we have to use historical, not scientific, categories (see ‘It’s not science!’ and Naturalism, Origins and Operational Science). This doesn’t mean science can’t contribute to historical questions, but only that science can never provide us with the final answer. And the science involved in such things is a different sort of science—we can call it historical, forensic or even ‘origins science’.
That sort of science, which is what cosmology (the discipline that proposes ideas such as the ‘big bang’) is categorically placed in, involves a great deal of speculation, because it attempts to determine events of the past based upon fragments we have in the present. Events from the past cannot be directly observed  or experimented on, tested, or repeated in the same way as observational science can.
In fact, one expert has recently gone even further by claiming that cosmology is not even science, period! A recent article in the prestigious journal Science stated:
‘Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science,’ says James Gunn of Princeton University
“‘Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science,’ says James Gunn of Princeton University, co-founder of the Sloan survey. ‘A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.’”
This film attempts to win over unbelievers through argumentation in the name of ‘science’, or rather, commonly understood scientific principles. But it really uses origins science instead; this misleads viewers into thinking that a historical science like cosmology can determine such things.
The story is driven by a growing relationship between college hockey star, Blake Truman, who is an unbeliever, and a college news reporter, Kerry Wells, who is a professing Christian who interviews him.
In their first interaction, we learn that Kerry is a virgin, a Christian, and a pastor’s daughter. Blake, however, is not a Christian, not sexually pure, and not interested in Christianity. Nevertheless, none of this seemingly bothers Kerry, who has an obvious romantic interest in him. From a biblical perspective this would be an unequal yoking of a believer with a non-believer (2 Corinthians 6:14). The producers do attempt to briefly block the maturation of this relationship by demonstrating the worldview conflict between the two, but it is not convincing. The interaction between the two is clearly flirtatious and a romantic climax seems certain.
Obviously, for evangelical believers this is something which should not be entertained and it may have been an early indication that the producers maintained a low view of Scripture, which was not isolated to the Bible’s teaching on origins.
Even though there is a social plot of young love, the impetus of the movie is about the struggle between the six days of Genesis and the assumed 15.75 (approximate) billion-year age of the universe. Kerry’s father, who is a pastor of a local church, seemingly provides the spiritual leadership for the plot. However, as the senior pastor, one would expect that he would be skilled at defending the faith. Sadly, he forfeits his position of authority by stating that Genesis is a hard book to understand.
Ignorance of the truth is one matter, but this pastor is portrayed as intellectually capable and even as an apt debater. In one scene, Kerry’s guidance counselor confronts him on the existence of absolute truth, and he defends its existence in the face of the counselor’s postmodern assertions. Sadly, though, whatever his source for absolute truth is, it’s obviously not the plain reading of the biblical text.
Therefore, the character who should be the best apologist seems to abdicate that position of authority early on. If he is not confident that the Bible is able to be understood, then how can he possibly persuade the unbeliever?
Genesis, at face value, is not a hard book to understand. However, if one believes in a 15.75 billion-year-old universe, then Genesis is a hard book to believe.
The pastor’s stance here provides the viewer with a clue that the plain reading of the biblical text is going to be challenged. In the film’s attempt to appeal to some perceived scientific rationale and ‘reason’, all the producers really accomplished was to make an argument that the Bible does not mean what it says. Genesis, at face value, is not a hard book to understand. However, if one believes in a 15.75 billion-year-old universe, then Genesis is a hard book to believe.
The attempt to merge secular belief with biblical belief is triggered when Kerry is trying to tell Blake that prayer works, and the Bible can be trusted. He responds, and says “Prove that science and Genesis are not in conflict, and I’ll reconsider.”
This is not only a challenge from boy to girl, it is the modus operandi of the movie, which is, if the Bible can be proven to agree with science, then it must be worth believing because it matches man’s conclusions. But the Christian’s thinking should be the reverse—we should only accept man’s conclusions when they agree with the inerrant revelation we find in Scripture.
However, Kerry accepts the task to prove that the Bible and big-bang science are compatible, and she involves her skeptical brother Mark, who is portrayed as a genius-level physics student. In the scientific climax of the film, he gives a presentation to the main cast of characters, where he asks the rhetorical question, is science right or the Bible? He then answers, “Both are absolutely correct.”
This creates further confusion for the viewer because it fails to even mention that while there is only one biblical creation account, there are many competing big bang accounts, even today. So which big bang idea is correct, and which one are we supposed to hang our theological hat on? And what happens when the big bang ideas change again, or if it is abandoned (and there are hundreds of non-Christian scientists claiming it should be—see Secular scientists blast the big bang); is our understanding of the Bible supposed to change then, too?
Furthermore, the film ignores the many practicing scientists who believe in biblical creation who practice in the area of real operational science, and whose scientific conclusions stand in sharp disagreement with big-bang origins. Never once did the movie seek to clarify these issues.
Mark’s subsequent speech contains the assertion that all matter within our entire universe was contained in a point of singularity no bigger than the size of a mustard seed. Using the mustard seed as metaphor for the big bang is appropriate. Indeed, it would take matchless faith to believe the entire universe was contained in something as small as that.
His revelation is the invocation of the idea of time dilation where time ticks faster at some places than it does at others. This interjects Einstein’s general theory of relativity into the film which suggests that time depends on acceleration and mass. Therefore, the passage of time would be relative to circumstance. Interestingly, creation cosmologies also invoke the relativistic nature of time itself to explain how we can see light from distant stars if the earth is only 6,000 years old as measured by our clocks. See the section in our Astronomy and Astrophysics Q&A: How can we see light from stars millions of light years away?
The movie explains that at the big bang, there was the exponential expansion of the universe, which caused the passage of time to be different from God’s cosmic position, than it is from man’s position. Therefore, the film’s argument was that the six-day creation of Genesis was a real six days, but only from God’s perspective whereas, from earth’s/man’s perspective the six days have been manifested as 15.75 billion years. Since the Bible says God inhabits eternity, one would presume that time (as we understand it in our 3-dimensional universe) is not applicable to God. He is outside of our time and not bound by the time/space universe that He created (although He chooses to interact in it). ‘Our’ time began with the creation of the universe. So, in reality, there are no ‘days from God’s perspective’ as such. So whenever the Bible talks about days, or any segment of time, that has to be time as man would experience it. So it is meaningless to talk about ‘God’s days’.
The Genesis Code’s assertion on time dilation seems to be based on Dr. Gerald Schroeder’s theories, (although the movie does not state this), and these have significant scientific problems. The time dilation that is proposed in the movie suggests the cosmic clock ticking at the ‘edge’ of our universe would register only days, while the clocks on earth would register billions of years. However, this is the exact opposite of what general relativity suggests (see this critique of Schroeder’s views).
[Editor’s note: This statement is valid provided that we assume the universe has, among other things, a unique center and an edge, and our galaxy lies somewhere near that center, as in modern creationist models that use general relativity and time dilation in regard to the travel time of light (see Starlight and time—a further breakthrough). Schroeder was likely assuming the opposite, as standard Big Bang cosmology does, i.e., that the universe is unbounded (no center and no edge). Recent observations are more consistent with our galaxy being in a very special place, somewhere near a unique center, and are also consistent with a bounded universe. See J.G. Hartnett, K. Hirano, Galaxy redshift abundance periodicity from Fourier analysis of number counter N(z) using SDSS and 2dF GRS galaxy surveys, Astrophysics and Space Science, vol. 318, no. 1 & 2, p. 13–24, 2008; J.G. Hartnett, ‘Where are we in the universe’ JoC, 24(2), p. 105–107, 2010.]
Nevertheless, Mark introduces the concept of POT, which stands for passage of time. He redefines the six creation days as six POTs. Each POT encompasses a different amount of earth time, but each is applicable to its corresponding day within the creation week. The six days are then partitioned into the 15.75 billion years of Big Bang ideology.
Therefore, using time dilation, “The Genesis Code” claims to solve the problem between the Bible’s six-day account and the movie’s account of 15.75 billion years. But this claim of congruity is deeply flawed.
“The Genesis Code” ignores the obvious points of conflict between the secular and biblical account of creation. To assume that Genesis is only about six days is vastly incomplete. There are key events within each day which are recorded. It is these events that the Genesis Code also dramatically changes. The biblical account is an orderly record of created matter, light, and life forms without any death, disease and suffering—which contradicts the secular order in which things came to be. The Bible clearly portrays a creation where all creatures including humanity were in harmony with each other and with God. Then, at the sin of Adam, recorded in Genesis 3, sin and death plagued the previously good creation.
However, the Genesis Code POTs contain many supposed mass extinctions (mass death) before the coming of Adam, the entrance of sin and, subsequently, death. Since fossils show things like violence, disease (many cancerous tumors, for instance). Thus things like suffering and cancer, for instance, are all part of the world that God describes as being all “very good” (!).
Therefore, this effort to reconcile the six days of Genesis with big bang ideology significantly fails at a theological level.
Rather, “The Genesis Code”, by way of cut-and-paste theology, has accused God for causing the suffering of creation before any sin had ruined the world. “The Genesis Code” would have us believe that God originally created with disease, suffering and death as an integral part of life on Earth.
This compromise of not recognizing sin as being the cause of all death and disease rears its ugly head within the subplot of the film when Blake’s mother is stricken with cancer. This trauma for Blake, as he has to consider the possibility that she will be taken off life support, will hit home for scores of viewers. For many non-believers, a major stumbling block is how to reconcile death and suffering with the biblical idea of a loving God.
The Bible, when taken at its word, is able to explain that the original sin of Adam is what caused death and suffering to God’s good creation (Gen. 3). The Bible sees death as the last enemy to be destroyed (1 Cor. 15:26), and that Jesus Christ is a savior who offers eternal life in a kingdom that will never end (Luke 1:33, John 6:40), who came to overturn the death that Adam wrought (Romans 5:12–21).
due to the theological position of “The Genesis Code”, the blame for all death lies squarely at the feet of God, not the sin of man
A film marketed as a Christian movie, which purposefully undertakes the issue of dealing with disease and death, would be expected to address the origin of such. However, due to the theological position of “The Genesis Code”, the blame for all death lies squarely at the feet of God, not the sin of man. It plays into the hands of many who disparage the idea of a benevolent loving Creator.
The slippery slope of compromise continues when Blake finally prays and brings the social plot to its climax. His prayer was meant to be a victory for Christianity after Blake saw that the Bible allegedly agreed with secular science through Mark’s presentation.
However, his prayer is not of repentance, but a request of healing for his mother. It cannot go without saying that not once, to my recollection, did the movie ever mention Jesus. Nevertheless, after this prayer Kerry and Blake finally kiss, which was the inevitable romantic encounter, and was highly symbolic of Blake’s acceptance into Christianity.
A problem here is that Blake was offered an implied inclusion into Christianity without any evidence of repentance in the face of the cross. A prayer of repentance and a prayer request are not the same thing.
Blake’s prayer is answered, and his mother is miraculously healed. But the underlying problem of suffering and death is never addressed. God doesn’t always affirmatively answer prayers for healing, and for 2,000 years, Christians who worship the Christ who defeated death have themselves died. This is a problem for those who don’t have a biblical view of Creation and the Fall.
The spiritual wrap-up of “The Genesis Code” comes through a professor and the pastor. The professor professes to believe in theistic evolution, and the pastor, after listening to his son’s presentation on POT, comments that man has finally “evolved” enough to understand God’s meaning.
But a stronger misrepresentation of God is difficult to imagine. God did not write with the pen of a jester when He said “days.” He did not wear a cloak of ambiguity when He said man’s sin caused death in creation (Romans 5:12, Romans 8:20). He did not encrypt His divine Word that would need to be cracked by physicists thousands of years, and billions of souls, after the fact.
it teaches as doctrine things that are totally foreign to the Christianity that is based on the ‘big picture’ of creation, the fall, and the cross
“The Genesis Code” is meant to be an apologetic for the Christian faith. It wears the attire of Christianity, but due to compromise, it teaches as doctrine things that are totally foreign to the Christianity that is based on the ‘big picture’ of creation, the fall, and the cross. And even though it’s a film about Christianity, it doesn’t present any of the vital elements of the Gospel. Sadly, despite this fact, many Christian organizations have endorsed this film. I can’t say this surprises me. In fact, I expected it. Much of our modern Church simply has lost discernment and has adopted an idea, by and large, that the Gospel must change to meet the changes of modern society. But that is a flawed belief. God is never-changing.
So, rather than being a good apologetic for the Christian faith, it is more likely to steer people away from the faith, because it answers the ‘problem’ of the Bible versus science by saying that the Bible does not mean what it says. It’s not rocket science to therefore conclude that if this is true other parts must have the same problem. Do we need special ‘codes’ to explain the feeding of the five thousand, or the Resurrection, simply because man’s view of science says that such things cannot happen?
When Christianity fails to observe scriptural authority and avoids repentance of sin, it no longer is Christianity rather it is Christianism, which steers clear of the true Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Negative—First, I will say that the plot was solid, the script was top notch, the filmmaking itself was edging on B class (which in this genre is a compliment), and the acting was the best by far of any Christian movie I’ve seen. There are elements that could be critiqued, but, overall, it made me care about the characters and believe them, while also providing me the quintessential gamut of emotional connection that makes going to the movies fun. However…
We just saw this film tonight, and I regret taking my 8th grade son. Although he has been homeschooled and presented with the Biblical account of creation as fact and studied Answers in Genesis materials, he was confused and wrongly excited about this movie. While the scientific ride taken in the film is well crafted and enthusiastically presented, it fails to pass muster on several accounts Biblically.
Instead of making an insanely long review, I’ll leave you with this list:
No mention of Jesus—the Fall, redemption, etc.
Assumes death was part of creation before the Fall
Creates a crafty, time-warping twist on age-old “day is like a thousand years” concept by saying somehow it wasn’t a bunch of years, but it was. God was right, but so are we. No.
Uses theory of time dilation to prove the wrong point. TD helps to explain distant starlight, not length of days or age of the universe.
We were unimpressed and irritated by the pastor and professor’s lines admonishing viewer as arrogant if they critique the movie’s premise or disagree with the [lack of] importance of young earth theory. In the end, I left feeling as though the movie’s goal was to force a view on me and make me feel stupid or arrogant if I disagree, which was the great irony of the film. The writers/producers themselves perpetrated what the “villain” of the film was mocked for attempting.
I, sadly, cannot recommend this film for believers or non-believers. It could have been rescued with a clear Gospel message, but the producers took more of an implied “all roads that lead to God are ok” approach which is not Biblical. It is confusing at best, and potentially damaging to those whose footing in creation apologetics is unsure.
***Spoiler Alert*** The lead character, in the end, seems to embrace the idea of God, but salvation was never explained to him, and it cannot be inferred that he got saved. Therefore, the kiss and implied future relationship between the lead character and the Christian girl also flies in the face of Scripture which is clear about being unequally yolked.
My Ratings: Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 5
—Mikayla, age 37 (USA)
Negative—Our family went to see “The Genesis Code” last Friday night. Although we found it to be entertaining, we were disappointed in the Biblical accuracy. It sparked a lot of good conversation, but we were not in agreement with several themes.
The first issue that we noted is that the Bible says in Romans 5:12, “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through on man, and death through sin…” This says that sin came to the world through Adam’s sin and because of this, death. So, if Adam didn’t appear on the earth for billions of years, did all the animals that God created prior to Adam live for billions of years? In Exodus 20:11, God said “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.”
God was using this as an example to the Children of Israel to show them what they should do. They were to work and rest the same time frame that He did.
Another theme that disappointed us was the relationship between Blake and Kerry. The kiss they shared at the end of the movie said their relationship was headed somewhere. But didn’t it matter that Kerry was a Christian and Blake was not? We are not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers and that should start with dating.
Lastly, was the scene at the end where everyone is now one happy family. It appears that Professor Campbell is happy that “everyone is really ok”. While the movie does end with the first chapter of Genesis, it still makes it appear that you can really believe whatever is good for you. I picture God seeing this movie and shaking his head and saying, “But I AM. I didn’t need billions of years. I created the earth just like I said I did.”
My Ratings: Moral rating: Average / Moviemaking quality: 3
—Phil, age 47 (USA)
Negative—The review said that saying all of what the universe consists of was in something so small as a grain mustard seed could not happen, but I see something far more dangerous, as this statement in the film was just one more piece of sheep’s clothing this film had on. Remember, a white lie is still a lie, and we see many in this film. It does not matter how much we believe in Jesus Christ, IF we have not trusted HIM for full payment for our sin. Not one prayer by this so called “reverent” included “In the name of our LORD and SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST.
If one is firmly planted on the Solid Rock, they would not be so easily shaken off that rock, not even by a academic counselor who was so entrenched in her own beliefs that she could not see the double standard she applied to her student. I have rated this as a negative, because all it takes is for a small amount of leaven to leaven the whole loaf, and there is a lot of leaven in this film.
Remember, also, that Satan does not mind people being religious, but he sure does hate the CROSS! I would have loved to see some of the Christians take a stand and tell some of those who were not something like, I do not know how to answer your questions about the scientific part of things, BUT I do know that the moment I trusted Jesus Christ for salvation, I was changed completely and then go on to tell about the wonderful saving and healing work of our LORD.
My Ratings: Moral rating: Better than Average / Moviemaking quality: 3
—Pastor Ken, age 65 (USA)
The Genesis Code - DVD – Mark V, 09/01/2012
Great Movie! I'm recommending this movie to everyone. I really appreciate the effort to deal seriously with both scripture and science. If God speaks through His Creation we need to study it seriously without fear of what we might find. But we must do it discerningly through the lens of the Bible.
Not sure what movie the previous poster was watching. The Genesis Code is not about reconciling the Bible and evolution! The Genesis Code actually takes several opportunities to discredit evolution and Darwinism. The movie is about the origins of the cosmos and a college students intellectual journey to a relationship with God.
Displaying 1 to 10 (of 11 reviews) (View all 11 reviews)
The Genesis Code - DVD
Already Asked: 2 Questions, 8 Answers
ChristianCinema.com Store asked: Why did you choose this?
Paul L: For the Creation Content Mar 14, 2013
Cecelia K: Like good family movies Nov 30, 2012
Tracy J: I have a son who loves hockey and I want him to have an answer with regards to the science vs God question. Nov 16, 2012
Loren C: I have had frequent discussions with others about the seeming conflict between the Bible and Science about the early life- "of dinosaurs" on Earth. I feel that they are compatable, No one has a grasp of how long a day of God's time is. Sep 14, 2012
Alfred a S: Good witnessing tool. Apr 27, 2012
Dan B asked: I am an avid biblical supporter of a literal 6 day creation and 6,000 years old earth. And I cannot ?fit? billions of years into the story from Genesis. Can you tell me if the movie tries to do this? Or does it bring out science that supports ?young earth? and the such like?
I don?t care if what you tell me ?spoils? the movie. But before I purchase the movie, I would hate to waste my money if the movie tries to fit billions of years into the biblical account of creation. Mar 17, 2012
Scott S: They said that there was a worldwide disaster, but conveniently forgot to mention Noah or the flood. They were still treating the geologic layers as a time scale, and said the "Cambrian explosion" is when a bunch of creatures suddenly appeared on the scene. But in reality, they suddenly DISAPPEARED from the scene. Despite the good acting, and good intentions, I was disappointed that it was so misleading. Sep 20, 2012
Dan B: Thanks Scott. I'm glad I didn't buy it now. Its not hard for me to believe the bible and the stories. Especially the flood. Kent Hovind does a good job disproving evolution and supporting a young earth. Sep 20, 2012
What customers say about ChristianCinema.com: