The Genetics of Sin Nature

The Bible talks about our “sinful nature,” “the flesh,” and “carnal man” all of which refer to an attribute found in all humans: a propensity to sin. So the question is: Is this propensity to sin in our DNA? The answer is yes, sin nature is hardwired in us and in our DNA. We are not forced to sin, but we have the tendency to sin. This is not a God given tendency, but rather a result of Adam eating the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden some 6000 years ago.

ducklings_smallLet’s start with some basic logic: consider a baby duck, a duckling. It knows how to break out of the egg, how to walk on two legs, how to swim, how to eat by itself, and how to peep, all immediately after hatching. These are what are referred to as instincts; they are hardwired into the duckling through DNA and are not acquired through learning. We know this because all ducklings have these instincts no matter if hatched by the hen or hatched in an incubator. Later in life the duckling will learn where to find water, where he is safe, and where the best feeding spots are. So, the mature duck has some behavior that is hardwired and some that is learned.

The hardwired memory in the brain is passed on from generation to generation through DNA; the learned memory is not. We do not know which sequences of the DNA store these instincts since our understanding of DNA is still very limited. However, if you take a duck egg shortly after it is laid and crack it open, look at it and know that something in it contains the instructions to generate duck instincts. Logically, it has to be the DNA code which contains all the information to build a duck and prepare him for survival. Without these instincts being transfered throught the DNA from generation to generation, the duckling would not even hatch.

So how about humans? Human infants also have hardwired instincts such as desire to suckle, the tendency to put everything in their mouths, communication through crying, etc. Later, these infants learn the danger of falling, what pleases others, tasty foods, language, and many other things. So, like the duckling, the human infant is born with some hardwired memory and then later supplements this hardwired memory with learned memory. The hardwired  memory, or instincts, of humans includes the sin nature. This sin nature is apparent in all children and especially evident when they start to talk.

After God finished the creation, He proclaimed that the entire creation was “very good,” and this included man’s hardwired memory, or basic human instincts. Then came the serpent who injected something (the first GMO – genetically modified organism) into man using the forbidden fruit; this fruit changed man’s DNA, man now had the “sinful nature;” he was “carnal” and driven by his “flesh.” We know that it happened quickly because Adam and Eve, immediately after committing the original sin, hid from God; they were afraid of Him and ashamed of their nakedness (Genesis 3: 9-11). This fear and shame could not have been learned in that no events occurred that would have caused them to “learn” to fear God or be ashamed.

Our hardwired, instinctive sin nature is part of our DNA and we have to deal with it. Paul struggled with his sin nature and expressed his frustrations in the book of Romans:

Romans 7:19  For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing.

Romans 7:20  Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

Romans 7:21  So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. (ESV)

Once the sin nature is understood, it becomes evident why it is so important for parents to teach their children right from wrong. It is the “learned” portion of the brain that can combat the hardwired sin nature.

However, the only permanent solution for dealing with the sin nature is to get rid of it; and, we have the hope that someday, soon, our sin nature will be removed; and, it will; the trumpets will blow, the dead in Christ will meet us in the air and we will be changed: our sin nature will be gone; we will get our good, pure, original DNA and we will be free. We will be redeemed.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

59 thoughts on “The Genetics of Sin Nature

  1. I do believe really in what you have already mentioned-above .For decades I have been asking myself about the sin nature and I have thought a lot of it ,but today Iam grateful to for this enlightenment-thanks

      1. I totally agree with sin being grafted into our DNA
        Before the “fall of man” Adam and Eve had no fear of God, God visited Adam everyday and ( great relationship. God.
        This first couple had all that they needed.
        The word sin pronounced with a Spanish accent means without. Sin convinces us that there isn’t enough. That contributes to darwinism (survival of the fittest, pull yourself up by your bootstraps), abuse in all shapes and sizes, wars, tyranny, etc.,etc., etc.

  2. “At Genesis and Genetics, we are currently working on human migration”

    By that, you mean you are looking for evidence to support your desired conclusion that “the Bible is truth”. That’s not how science works. In science you start with data – ALL data, and find the best explanation. What you are doing is pretty much the opposite.

    1. Charles,
      Thank you for your interest in science. We, at Genesis and Genetics hold the Bible up as the only true science book. Science means knowledge and there is not greater knowledge than that of God Himself. We are very clear; we accept the Bible by faith and defend it with observations. Observations can be misleading, but that is the world we live in. This world is a very misleading place due to the influence of Satan.

      Concerning the current secular science, your idea of science is naive. Current modern science is being driven by funding, status, and connections. The influential people in science set the hypothesis and the bandwagon is filled with people going for the ride. For instance, I heard of one professor who told his students: stop working on evolutionary classifications, its a waste of time.

      Also, the basis of current, secular science is faith. Consider the following tenets of faith:

      1. All things came into existence from nothing by accident. (Big Bang)
      2. All living things came into existence from a warm pool. (Darwin)
      3. The Zebra evolved from a wet rock on another planet.(e.g. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/03/aliens-send-space-seed-to-earth_n_6608582.html)
      4. A hyena type common ancestor loved to swim and became a sperm whale. (most evolutionary biology texts)

      In our opinion, it takes faith to accept these things; but we respect all opinions and would like if others would respect ours.

      1. admin, so if thec world has no BIBLE and one race compiled it in your ides selcted those that suite their traditions and intentions, then the TRUTH is the bible NT has only four gospels out of 32, have 8 alleged books in the NT but not but letters of PAUL, mark, luke mathew are not apostles but there are 72-apostles, 12-from 12 tribes of Israel.do Admin admits, bible is corrupted, deleted, removed some added some, who wrote the ROMANS? bibles were divided into verses to insert and deletes their ideas, HOLY? if Satan exist from the first t othe last book of revelations joining the events is it still holy? reliable? its not DNA but blood, from before man has only 4-blood type, A/B/AB and O so A & B mixed but not O. if A is Adam’s, B is Eve’s and AB is Seth”S who owns the “O”? will we accept from Satan to his Son CAIN in planted to Eve as med-science truth: “TWINNING”? so the race of Cain multiuplied in the plains of the earth from Babylon, no wonders most man’s blood is type “O” serpent seeds’ blood type, sorry i am “B” but don’t worry, God ordained SAVINGS Jesus the Christ 3-comings, earthman’s 3-salvations: inherited sin, untruth to truth and everlasting life given back

        1. I disagree, but please feel free to make your case. So far you are just giving me a loose statement. The article is very clear and speaks for itself.

          1. Perhaps, I judged too quickly; if so, I apologize. I read, and reread, and reread the article, and nowhere therein did I see any reference to a “zebra.” However, in the reading, I detected the possibility (probability?) that you might have been extrapolating.
            That is, the authors were maintaining that life on Earth, “in general,” evolved from an extraterrestrial source, and you disagreed with that premise. If that were your point, I now understand what you were trying to say. (I believe that theory has merit, but you do not.)
            Thanks for the forum. As the old saying goes, “Intelligent people (including some of us who are not so) disagree.”

          2. Here is the logic: Some scientist say that life evolved from other planets that were more conducive to evolution. As you know ours is not. Therefore, life on another planet evolved from a wet rock. Then, this slime or whatever was transported to this planet and became better slime, then better better slime until it finally became a zebra. I feel that my logic is solid and in concert with the theme of the article. And according to evolution theory, it had to come from a wet rock, no matter the planet. Where am I wrong? How did it originate on the other planet? In summary, take the zebra and follow his ancestors backwards. Let me know if your conclusion is any different than mine.

            Admin

      2. Lovely response. I’ve seen nothing so filled with Holes and gaps as the evolutionary concept and just recently, the covid pandemic. The non believers seek always se to believe they’re informed and that they have a right to berate those of faith when they’re just a mockery to themselves.

    2. What does science have to do with the Bible? Remember science is a religion on its own, designed to counteract the Bible. The 2 do not mix at all.

      1. In the good old days, science meant knowledge, and there is no better source of knowledge than the Bible. Unfortunately, science, at least in the field of evolution, has come to be the opinion of the intellectually elite. So, you are right those two do not mix.

        Admin

  3. “The hardwired memory in the brain is passed on from generation to generation through DNA; the learned memory is not. We do not know which sequences of the DNA store these instincts since our understanding of DNA is still very limited.”

    I am not sure I agree. I have often thought that some learned memory is, indeed, passed along (genetic/racial memory). It would certainly explain feelings we may have with no cause for them (maybe from an ancestor’s traumatic experience). It would explain feelings of “deja vu” and much more.

    Since you state that our knowledge of DNA is still very limited, shouldn’t you keep an open mind to the possibility of some learned memory being passed along?

    1. Texfam,

      I do not see how any learned memory can be passed from generation to generation without being stored in the DNA. Take the duck egg raised in an incubator, how can any information be passed to the duckling without going through the DNA. We do have an open mind on this topic, but you have to give us the vehicle that transports learned memory before we consider it. Is it the egg shell, the yolk, or the white and what is the transfer mechanism?

      We know that DNA forms the BIOS (computer analogy) which is perfect for passing memory.

      Keep in touch and let us know your findings,
      Admin

  4. I can’t think of the author at the moment, but there is a good article I believe titled: “what really happened in the garden of Eden”. Consider, using your DNA theory, that the original sin is Eve getting pregnant by “the serpent” and begetting Cain, (Eve’s fall). Adam’s fall being entering into the fallen womb, and begetting Abel. Cain and Abel, brothers with different fathers.

  5. Thanks for your write-up.But kindly note that the sin nature had already been destroyed by Jesus’death and resurrection.We don’t need to wait till the rapture for the sin nature to be destroyed.The way forward for humanity is to accept the finished work of Jesus.If any man be in Christ he is a new creature,a species of being that has never existed before.If you accept Jesus as your Personal Lord and Saviour,that “genetic code” of sin in Your spirit is destroyed completely.A new you is created(talking about your spirit).This new you has a new nature,God’s nature,with a new Genetic code of God’s righteousness.You are automatically programmed to act with and in God’s Righteousness.Just like Adam and Eve were automatically programmed to sin,with the sin nature.
    The question now is,’why do we still experience the “popping up” of the old genetic code in our behavioural patterns,eventhough we claim to be Born of God,with a new Genetic code of God’s Righteousness.The answer is that when we get born of God,it is our spirit that gets transformed.Our soul is not changed.And the soul,through the years had been taught,by the activities of the sin nature,how to behave.After you are born again,your soul would still continue along the part of the sin nature,until an external force acts on it(your soul) to change its direction.Remember Newtons Law of motion:”Every material substance will be at a state of rest or continue with a uniform motion on a straight line,until an external force acts on it..Therefore the soul will continue along the it’s learned partway,until the external force of God’s Righteousness is acted upon it,through the avenue of meditating on God’s word and prayer.And in some occasions we may add fasting to the equation.,Romans 12:2 calls it the renewing of our mind.Therefore,the soul has to be taking through a process of renewal.It has to be taught God’s righteousness,through Gods word.
    In conclusion,we should note that we can destroy a disease,yet we may have to grapple with the symptoms for a while.Which implies that,once you are born again,the nature of sin is completely and permanently destroyed.However,the born again person’s soul may still manifest the symptoms of the sin nature,this does not mean the individual is still having the sin nature.No!Rather it means the person needs to understand how to enforce his new nature upon his soul.This,of course,is a continual process, throughout ones lifetime.

  6. From my autobiography.

    One (or more) authors state, “Is [the] propensity to sin in our DNA? The answer is yes, sin nature is hardwired in us and in our DNA. We are not forced to sin, but we have the tendency to sin. This is not a God-given tendency, but rather a result of Adam eating the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden some 6000 years ago.” And, “Our hardwired, instinctive sin nature is part of our DNA and we have to deal with it.”
    Wow! In order to justify the doctrine of original sin, the fundamentalists have attempted to coalesce an abstract, unprovable, philosophical concept (sin) with a wholly tangible and provable principle (DNA). News flash, Biblicists―the two concepts are decisively immiscible.
    Six thousand years? How absurd! The study of human evolution involves many truly scientific disciplines, including physical anthropology, primatology, archaeology, paleontology, neurobiology, ethology, linguistics, evolutionary psychology, embryology and genetics.
    Combined, these disciplines have declared our first human ancestors appeared between five million and seven million years ago, probably when some ape-like creatures in Africa began to walk habitually on two legs. And they were flaking crude stone tools by 2.5 million years ago. Then some of them spread from Africa into Asia and Europe after two million years ago.
    There is certainly no lack of imagination and no bounds to how far the religionists will go to justify the inanities of their sacred texts. It seems that the more implausible the biblical tenets are, the more ridiculous are the Biblicists’ rationalizations.
    But this group further goes on to say, “We, at Genesis and Genetics hold the Bible up as the only true science book. Science means knowledge and there is no greater knowledge than that of God Himself. We are very clear; we accept the Bible by faith and defend it with observations. Observations can be misleading, but that is the world we live in. This world is a very misleading place due to the influence of Satan.
    Science? What science? Science doesn’t mean “knowledge” (although knowledge is derived from science). Rather, science is defined as: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Believing in the literal Bible is not science.
    Thus, it becomes “curiouser and curiouser.” Firstly, from where does God’s scientific knowledge come? Oh, that’s right, the outrageously flawed (man-written) Bible. And secondly, the author(s), on one hand, defend the Bible with “observations,” and they then make a hundred and eighty-degree turn and say that observations “can be misleading.” How dichotomous!

  7. Now. I’m confused! I’m trying to understand your position, yet I am unable to. At this point, I am unsure whether you are promoting thevolution or a strict interpretation of the Bible sicu est. Please clarify for me.
    Thanks.

    1. My point is that those who accept evolution are accepting the notion that the zebra evolved from a wet rock on another planet.

      I, personally, believe that there is no evolution at all. I reject all tenets of evolution.

      When I make the statement about the zebra, evolutionists reflect and realize that is what they believe. I am just trying to get people to reflect, to realize what evolution is promoting.

      If you recall the Miller Urey experiments of the 1950’s, you will remember the headlines such as scientist created the building blocks of life in the lab. As it turns out the experiments were a disaster for those who embrace evolution. This is why those who really understand these problems have turned to the notion that aliens planted life on Earth since it couldn’t have evolved here. The term “wet rock on another planet” is a term I coined. However, if you recall, Darwinian evolution states that life began in a warm pool. From what? water and rocks! So, this is in tune with Darwinian evolution.

      So, now that you know the background, do you believe that the zebra evolved from a wet rock on another planet? If not, tell me how he evolved. What were his most ancient ancestors?

      I’m just trying to make a point. I don’t want to upset anyone.

      Admin

  8. Thanks for responding.

    And yes, I did, and I do now, completely understand the analogy. I do, however, (for the most part) endorse evolution, and I vigorously disagree with the Genesis storyline outlined in the Bible. For notwithstanding the glaring dichotomies between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, I find it to be rife with fantasy. And like thevolution, I’ve read some outrageous “interpretations” about that topic.

    Also, from my autobiography, “…but if they [Genesis and Genetics] are serious, I applaud them for taking the Bible literally and not trying to justify scriptures with labyrinthine interpretations; e.g., “thevolution.”

    Also, thank you for the lively discourse. And along that line, do you discuss other biblical topics? If so, I’d like to open additional discussions and propound some ancillary ideas.

    1. You must realize by now that I endorse others’ beliefs in their Gods, and so I do for you too.

      From the lede to my autobiographical chapter, “In the Name of the Father, Etc., Etc., Etc. (it’s a tad ribald, so you might not want to publish it; if so, I would understand):

      Industrial-grade Bible-thumpers and other religious zealots beware! By now dear reader, you are au courant with the unfettered ribaldry throughout much of this autobiography. But be forewarned. This chapter is dissuaded for the staid or the weak of heart, as it is not only salacious, it is what many might consider blasphemous, and others might perceive it to be transgressive.
      The writing, much of it presented with sarcasm, does, however, dovetail with my personal cynicism of organized religion. And outlining that, I suppose that I should expect a stanchless volley of invectives from ardent religionists.
      So, if you’re a devout follower of faith, and your sense of humor is as shallow as your religious beliefs are deep, you are best advised not to read this chapter.
      Yet, as a proviso, having read the chapter, “What’s a Johnny,” you should by now know that, although not a deist, I am, conversely, a stalwart supporter of religion. Moreover, I am the antithesis of mainstream atheists who try to trample and foist their “non-beliefs” on believers. Indeed, I vigorously―almost rabidly―advocates and celebrate an individual’s right to follow the faith to which he gives credence, regardless of what religion that might be.
      I understand religious adherents, for I too was once one of them. In fact, during my early adolescent years, I had plans to be a Catholic priest. But at the age of fifteen, I came to the realization that the religion I had been taught in Catholic schools was nonsense. And in the natural progression of arriving at deductive inferential conclusions, I became aware that it wasn’t just Catholicism that defied logic, but all the other creeds were counterintuitive too.
      I wish I could “believe” ―I just can’t. As a point in fact, when I decided I needed to stop drinking, I began a Church /alcoholic recovery program with a healthy disbelief in God and an even healthier disbelief in Catholicism. Alas, that agnosticism did not portend a long-term romance between the “Catholic” God and me.

      Oh, how I tried! I so wanted to have faith, for I’ve always been envious of those who have a relationship with their God. I even went to Mass and Communion every day for six months! But I just couldn’t make the cut.
      Among other things, it seemed that every time I was in the Communion queue, there was a woman with a fine ass (okay, okay…any kind of ass) in front of me. Unsurprisingly, I undressed her with my covetous eyes and looking skyward, complained, “Why are you doing this to me Chief?” The church thing just wasn’t going to work for me.

      Thank you for taking the time to read my diatribe. (Also, I plan to visit the website to which you have directed me.)

      1. Don,

        I would suggest that you try something. Throw out your religion or any preconceived ideas you may have about God and/or the Bible. Then, replace it with God, himself. I would suggest setting aside a half hour per day for a week. Go someplace where you won’t be disturbed. Simply ask God to have His Spirit deal with you and dialogue with you. Take your Bible with you; you may need it. Let us know what happens.

        1. Thank you; I know–and appreciate–that you are sincerely trying to help me. I have tried a modified form of what you have suggested; however, I’ve met with no success. Nevertheless, because I do want to believe, I’ll try your plan.
          But on to another topic. I have never–absolutely never–had discourse with a religionist as tolerant as you. In the discussions I have had, the “believers” have always used the biblical tactic of intimidation; e.g., “If you don’t believe, you’re going to hell.”

          1. Don,

            I look at the Bible from a face-value perspective. According to the Bible, God created everything in 6 days, then He rested. As He rested, His valued, trusted friend betrayed Him and injected sin into the tree of knowledge. His friend watched as God created all things in 6 days and decided he wanted it. He came up with a scheme and injected sin into the fruit. So, the origin of sin was not from God; He hates sin. He will not tolerate it, but once it was injected into the fruit on day 7, God let it be. But He warned Adam not to eat it for it would result in death, spiritual death. When Adam ate the fruit, he received the sin nature, not from God, but from God’s enemy, His former trusted friend. The key point is to understand clearly the origin of sin.

            Now, let’s move on to the 21st century. A church pastor molests a young girl and she is traumatized for the rest of her life. Whose fault is it? It is the fault of the pastor and his sin nature. Whose fault is it that he has the sin nature? It is Adam’s fault, but ultimately it is the enemy’s fault. He put the sin in the fruit. Remember that on day 6 of the creation, God looked at his creation and said, everything is “very good.” Well, everything wasn’t very good on day 8 because the trusted friend injected his sin into the fruit.

            In the above hypothetical example, who gets blamed? God! Why? He hates sin more than anyone! He had His son go through Hell to give us a path to share in the original righteousness. Yet, God gets blamed!

            I deal with people all the time who blame God for everything. In truth, creating freewill is not easy. God knows what He is doing and I don’t blame Him for anything. I live by faith and am comfortable with it.

            Admin

  9. To understand these things, you have to get into God’s world. You have to leave human reasoning and understand that God is the creator and author of all things. He clearly reveals His attributes.

    Jesus said blessed are those who are not offended by me. He also said my ways are not your ways.

    Think about this, Moses offered God some advice, and God took it. Wow, that is freedom of thought, will, and action. That is what is important to God. God and Moses spoke to one another “mouth to mouth.”

    So, if you choose God, you have to be willing to do it His way. I have done it and now I can see a bit more clearly, and I am comfortable with it all.

    The bottom line of the whole thing is FAITH. No matter how many questions I answer, and how many people you question, and no matter how many answers you get, you still have to be willing to approach God by faith. Faith is the only way to please God. Many people don’t like that, but that is the way it is, and the way God designed it.

    1. Dear Administrator,

      You seem like a helluva nice guy, and it would be my pleasure to know you. You have most certainly not condemned me to hell as so many other Biblicists have.

      I admire you for having the courage for publishing what many narrow-minded bigots would consider to be blasphemous. Obviously, you respect others’ opinions.

      Alas, I can’t leave reason aside, and I believe I’m as comfortable in my beliefs as you are in yours.

      Please trust me when I say that I celebrate you staunch faith, and I wish you contentment and peace.

      A friend and admirer,

      Don Quixote

        1. Dear Administrator,

          This will probably be my last missive to you, for I have completed the chapter about which we have previously spoken. I did, however, think that you might be interested in my summarization:

          In summary, the predominant Achilles’ heels of religion (as well as the Bible and its sisters) are:
          1. The anomaly of “faith”; that is, to believe in God and the Bible, one has to believe in God and the Bible,
          2. The enigma of why God would have had his biblical prophets write the surfeit of “facts” that are so readily disproven today,
          3, The illogicality and injustice of original sin and its use as a coercive agent,
          4. The irrationality of the Bible’s tenets and the Biblicists’ ludicrous attempts to make sense of them, quite frequently, using the Bible to justify the Bible,
          5. The dichotomy of religion, itself; i.e., why does mankind need agents to negotiate with God?
          6. And most of all, the profanity, depravity, and barbarity of the Bible, et al. and their denigrations of the sanctity of life.

          Thanks for giving me a forum, as I’ve enjoyed our chats.

          Your friend,
          Don Quixote

  10. Don,

    I read it and agree with his numbers. He did a good job.

    Also, I appreciate your thoughts and concern for my well being. Since I am not an atheist, I will pray for your peace and contentment.

    Your friend,
    James

  11. The “he” refers to the author of the article. He put much effort into his analysis of the Bible and did a good job. However, in truth, God has appointed that we all should die. He is the author of death. Death is a wonderful thing in that it rescues us from the sin reality. My prayer is that God will take me after my usefulness is complete and take me as soon as possible. I am very tired of sin, sin in the world and the sin in me. I am ready.

    Your true friend,
    James

  12. John,

    You would make a good preacher. You made some very good points. I have been on the front line for quite a few years and am growing weary; so, thank you, sincerely.

    James

    1. Dear James,

      Thanks for the compliment. But alas, if I were a preacher, I’d be more like Elmer Gantry than I would be like you and Billy Graham are.

      I’d like to occasionally stay in touch with you–something on the order of a wellness check, I suppose.

      Don’t let the b*******s get you down.

      Your admiring friend,

      John

  13. Elmer,
    It is always good to hear from you. I cannot save souls, but I do get pleasure in defending the Bible. Here are a couple of links to a guy who is an agnostic, but has a great respect for the Bible. I love the way he presents himself and his philosophy. His name is David Berlinski, and you may have much in common with him.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S89IskZI740

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-01OCvOXfE

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvnTnC9ldZs

    Being Christian, I am allowed to pray for you and this pleases me. I do, however, have one problem and that is, it appears, you have many names, so I try to hit them all. But I would appreciate if you would have mercy and not add too many more.

    Your true friend,
    James (my real name)

  14. Dear Johnny,

    Happy Thanksgiving to you as well. We are doing well. We just had a huge breakthrough in our investigations of genetics. We are working on a new blog. Since you are a close friend, I will share it with you before anyone else and would love to hear your comments. Here it is.

    As you know our specialty is genetics and I put two facts together: 1. we have 37 trillion cells in our bodies, and 2. we have 3 billion places for information to be stored in our DNA. Plus we know that the body knows were each cell belongs, the heart, the brain, the bones, etc. Furthermore, the body needs to feed each cell with blood. Therefore to just know where the cells are would take 37 trillion (cells) times 3 (3-dimensional coordinates) equals 111 trillion pieces of information. This does not include all the other functions DNA must perform. I hit a roadblock. What to do? Therefore, I did what Isaac Newton, and many cosmologists, and physicists did and are doing. I came to the conclusion that we living in a multiverse, not a universe, but a multiverse. I now understand why the multiverse idea appeared; the experts in their fields reach dead ends. We have reached the point where science and religion are converging.

    I thought you might enjoy this and I do respect your opinion on these things. I guess I will spend, at least some of, my Thanksgiving on the multiverse. I can’t put it down.

    Your good friend,
    James

    1. Dear James,

      I am honored that you would share this with me before “it goes to press.” Thank you.

      But, not as intelligent as you, I read and reread your posting, and I still remain confused. Please help me understand.

      My points of confusion are threefold:
      1. I can’t understand the “roadblock” you encountered. On what road were you traveling when you hit the roadblock; i.e., what were you seeking to prove in the first place?
      2. What was your train of logic to segue from the gene analysis and a roadblock to your conclusion about multiverses?
      3. And how did you arrive at the conclusion that religion and science are converging?

      Please forgive my naivete, but could you please flesh it out for me–I am intensely curious.

      Your friend and admirer,

      Johnny

      P.S. Reading between the lines, you appear to be more upbeat than you have in the past. I hope so, and I wish you well.

      1. Johnny,

        Let’s go back a while. Early man saw the sun and said this must be god. The same can be said for many other phenomena. Anything that could not be explained would be attributed to some god or one God. Things have not changed but are now more complex. Many in science choose not to attribute anything to god, so they explain it with science. They have hit roadblocks: the origin of the big bang, quantum mechanics, dark matter, dark energy, spacial inflation, the origin of life, etc. They couldn’t give God any press, so they have come up with a scientific explanation: the multiverse as opposed to the universe. The multiverse has yet to be defined, but they have several main theories. As more and more roadblocks surface the more the scientific community embraces the multiverse. There are two opponent groups. One says why have a theory you cannot prove? And the other group says the multiverse is too Bible-like. The one version ( the infinite dimensions) has Bible written all over it. None the less Isaac Newton started the concept, Stephen Hawking loved it, and now there are too many to count who are accepting it.

        I too have reached a couple of roadblocks in genetics. One, our small amount of DNA is not sufficient for controlling our physiology, not even close. We only have 3 billion DNA data positions. These must control 37 trillion cells and 100 billion neurons. I cannot imagine a computer program that ingenious and efficient. To me, this is a serious roadblock. I could just say, well God created it that way and be done with it. However, I decided to use scientific terminology and methods so as to not take so much heat.

        So, here is, briefly, the concept: We are living in a multiverse with many other realities, all of which have dimensions orthogonal to ours. Take the Bible in Genesis 1, it says that the creatures were created after their kinds. That is an interesting way of saying they were created. It implies that they already exist in another reality we can call the multiverse. This could also mean that the missing DNA code is there and being shared between realities.

        These ideas are not yet mature, but I shared them with you anyway. That is what good friends do.

        The reason I think that religion and science are converging is the existence of these roadblocks. We share the roadblocks. These roadblocks may push us together, but maybe not.

        your friend and fellow seeker of truth,
        James

        1. Dear James,

          Thanks for responding. And thanks for sharing.

          Wow! You’ve opened up new vistas for my almost non-stop inquiring mind; you know…that affliction which propelled me to be an atheist.

          Nevertheless, I am not versed enough to fully understand your concept, but I intend to research it. I’ve already found a plethora of websites dealing with “junk DNA,” and I remain confused about it. Study, Johnny, study!

          I do, however, tend to disagree with the posture, “…why have a theory you cannot prove?” For I believe that “theories” are necessities of life. For example, “I have a theory that if I exercise regularly, I’ll feel more energetic.” Then I experiment–i.e., I test the theory, analyze the results, and gain empirical knowledge.

          Moreover, my perception of multiverses is directly opposite to “The one version (the infinite dimensions) has Bible written all over it.,” for it seems to me that multiverses dilute the Genesis of the Bible.

          As I wrote, “And some astrophysicists … theorize that different “pockets” have broken away from the known universe and formed parallel universes with perhaps different laws of physics than ours. In fact, some experts think the existence of hidden universes is more likely than not, rendering an infinite number of universes.

          So if you look far enough, you would encounter another version of you—in fact, infinite versions of you. Some of these twins will be doing exactly what you’re doing right now, while others will have worn a different sweater this morning, and still others will have made vastly different career and life choices. How can the tenets of the Bible (especially Genesis) even remotely reconcile with that?”

          But, alas, as you implied when you said, “The bottom line of the whole thing is FAITH,” the theory of God cannot be tested. And like so many of the “roadblock-encountered” theories, that one too is at a dead end.

          In discussing our correspondence with my wife, who is NOT an atheist, she advanced a few questions:
          1. Whence came your theory that sin is hardwired into our DNA?
          2. And what proof (other than the Bible) do you proffer that it is more than just a theory?

          On another note: We were initially speaking about Darwinism. Your insightful comments induced me to write, “Of course, Darwinian theory is not a fact as such. It’s a plausible theory, but it is just that―only a theory. Conversely, Darwinism is substantially more conceivable than the Adam and Eve “facts” postulated in the Bible.”

          Also prompted by you, I wrote, ” Conversely, I don’t believe science will ever disprove “God.” For how can an unknown be disproven? It’s like dividing one by zero (which is undefined) or dividing zero by one (which is zero); that is, a number divided by zero will become zero (or nothing). Thus, there is no tangible solution to either problem.

          Likewise, I believe there are no material answers to the existence or the non-existence of God.”

          And I’m certain you’ll appreciate this passage, “However, what might appear to be wishy-washy and an apostasy of that which I’ve written, I often muse about the prospect of an immanent God; i.e., perhaps there is a God within each of us. When we look in awe at the natural world around us, when we contemplate the majesty of the universe, when a mother cradles her baby in her arms for the first time, when a husband and wife gaze at one another with pure love in their eyes, maybe, just maybe, that is a noumenal God speaking to us.”

          Who knows? Maybe there is hope for me yet.

          Once, again, thank you for sharing with me. (I’ll be hard at work learning about DNA.)

          Admiringly and in friendship yours,

          Johnny

          1. I would like to comment concerning disproving God. I agree with that, but consider how easy it would be to disprove the Bible. For instance, we know that Mesopotamia was the first civilization with a written record, and it is known, from the Bible, to be where those shortly off the Ark settled (Land of Shinar). Many considered these happenings as myths: the Ark, the tower of Babel, confusion of tongues, Noah, etc. However, in the 1800s Mesopotamia was excavated, at least some of it. These ancient records included so many of the things recorded in the Bible that now the “experts” are saying the Bible is a copy of the Mesopotamian myths. Nonetheless, the point is that if the excavations in Mesopotamia found no writings corroborating the Bible, but rather records of the people migrating from Africa, the Bible would be proven wrong. In cosmology, if the evidence proved the universe did not have a beginning, the Bible would be proved wrong. In genetics, if the Bible stated that all mankind came from a woman, the obvious choice, the Bible would have been wrong. If all genetic diversity could not have come from Adam and Eve, the Bible would be proven wrong. Historically, if Ashurbanipal’s library would not have referred to the same history as the Bible, the Bible would be proven wrong. Prophetically, if Babylon would continue as an inhabited city, the Bible would have been proven wrong.

            The point is that the Bible is vulnerable to being easily proven wrong, but it stands.

            Concerning the multiverse, I am confident that mathematics will lead us to God. I love mathematics. I am not good at it, but I do love it. Mathematics is way ahead of physics and it is one of God’s languages. So, watch the math; the many multiverse theories will converge into one.

            Your friend,
            james

  15. P.S. In my last missive, I failed to ask you another of my (non-atheist) wife’s questions; i.e., what scientific testing, experimentation, data gathering, etc. did you employ to arrive at the conclusion that sin nature is in our genes? Or is it an inference you gleaned from reading the Bible?
    Wow–she’s on a roll!

    1. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Johnny,

      I will answer your last submission shortly, but here is what I have on sin nature. We have a blog that talks about sin nature. It is based on what we see in nature concerning instincts of ducks. Like ducks, we have instincts, one of which is to sin. We have 5 grandchildren; they are wonderful, but they all hit the ground sinning: lying, stealing, and jealous. Their parent are doing a good job, but the sin nature is there.

      But, it is not in just my grandchildren, it is also me. I have been fighting the sin nature for 73 years and getting very good at hiding it but not good at eliminating it. I am not a “good person.” I need a savior. He has my good copy of DNA in him ready for me on that day. I received the sin nature 6,000 years ago and will have it until I die. I reflect on my life often, and this reflection results, many times, in repentance. I love repentance. Every sin that I have committed is an eternal pillar to my weakness and God’s strength. Sorry, but I am getting off track.

      I have concluded that the sin nature is in our DNA because everyone has it, and I don’t know anyone who got rid of it. You can’t get rid of DNA. This is simple logic. All ducks can walk on two legs the first day of birth, and we sin as soon as we have the facilities. Even Paul, possibly the most renown Christian, could not get rid of his sin nature, so he separated himself from it and said I do not sin, but it is the sin in me that sins. (Romans 7:17)

      All of this is just my opinion. I may be wrong, but I like to have an opinion so that someday, I will see how wrong I was, or maybe right once in a while.

      We can all seek the truth together,
      Keep up the good work,
      James

  16. Johnny,

    We have an interesting situation here, and we can both learn from it. You want to believe, but cannot. I do believe and can not believe. Why is this? Why can neither of us change? We are exact opposites in our beliefs, yet equally resolved?

    With me, I not only believe, but I also have to serve Him. It is not a matter of duty, and it is not a matter of indebtedness; it is a matter of something I do not understand. If someone said, you can have your choice (1) serving Him or (2) oxygen. I wouldn’t hesitate and say “serving Him.” It is so ingrained in me that there is absolutely no option. I wonder why. When I was in my early 20s I put up a Jesus billboard. In my 30s and 40s, I served as a missionary. In my 50’s until the present, I am a Christian blogger. I do not know what drives me.

    I would like to know what drives you to be the opposite of me. Then maybe I can figure it out.

    I will say, and I don’t want you to take offense at this, but, it is true, God dotes on me and my wife. That may be a clue. I don’t know.

    I hope we can explore these questions a bit. Let’s search truth together. I really hadn’t thought about these things until meeting you.

    Your friend and fellow searcher for truth,
    James

  17. Thank your for the discussion admin. One thing I don’t understand though….

    If sin is passed on genetically then how did Satan and demons acquire sin? Aren’t they spiritual beings void of any body and void of DNA. At some point , possibly before the world was formed, they existed in heaven and rebelled, sinned, against God and were kicked out, well before the garden.

    1. Mark,

      Good question. I am not sure of the answer, but it probably has to do with the original creation and that you cannot create good without creating evil as a side product. It also has to do with God’s love for freedom of thought and freedom of will.

      James

      1. I believe the fact that non-corporeal beings (angels) sin throws into question your premise that sin is passed on genetically. Yes, the creation of good implies the possibility of evil and yes we (and angels) are different from a tree or plant by God’s gift of free will. But how does that connect to sin being material or immaterial?

        I believe sin is passed on spiritually not materially for I see no other alternative that aligns to the facts. We must view original sin as immaterial. Thus, the fruit in the garden didn’t alter their DNA rather the act of eating (willful disobedience and rebellion to God) brought about a spiritual change. So sin nature is passed on spiritually.

        Consider salvation. Salvation is not passed via DNA nor any physical means but spiritually. Salvation is the spiritual cure to sin, the spiritual disease. And that spiritual disease ripples into the physical, material world with dire consequences culminating in death. Fortunately God provided grace and eternal life through His spiritual gift collectively known as salvation (Eph 2:8-9, John 3:16, John 1:12).

        Just something for you to consider.

        1. Mark,
          I appreciate your interest in these things, and you may be right. My premise is based on my knowledge of genetics and the Bible. The sin nature was passed on through the fruit (DNA) and/or disobedience (spiritual). It could be both. This would be true for mortality as well. They disobeyed by eating the fruit and later died. Was it the DNA change or the disobedience (spiritual)? It could be both, but I am convinced after having studied DNA for many years, that death did come from the fruit. It is evident in the genomes of humans and animals. But, it could be spiritual as well.
          Thank you for your very insightful comment.

          Admin

          1. Jesus said, the sin’s of the Father befall the third and/or fourth generation, I believe it is both physical and soul/spiritual.

  18. Yay! You guys help a new searcher doubter immensely! I’m swayed by everything so easily and so completely, and yet on this blog, no comments make me think ’noooooo , it can’t be real!’. Massive thanks for being awesome, unswayable, cool polite and on point! Also, thanks God for putting these guys here for me now! Booooooom what a design!

  19. There were two trees in the Garden, that had fruit to eat one was the Devil who bore the fruit of good and evil, the other was Jesus who bore the fruit of everlasting life.
    Satan beguiled Eve into believing he could make Eve be greater than God by knowing good and evil. He had sex with Eve, at the same time Adam also had sex with Eve, Eve became pregnant and bore two son’s Cain and Able.
    Cain was the son of Satan and Able was the son of Adam, as can be seen by their works, being Cain was of evil spirit, he murdered Able because of jealously.
    God knew the truth of whom both boys were and who Fathered them.
    The rest is history and in this day and age the tree of good and evil controls the world
    as can be seen by the knowledge of technological advancements.
    Mankind is now worshiping the many faces of Satan, we hold it in our hands, we use it to communicate around the world, it poisons our mind body and soul, the spirit, being of God tries to connect with our soul to warn us of the consequences, the world, in many respects, is stronger.
    Jesus came to warn us of the future, he came to give mankind a choice, follow him and live, follow the world and die, the choice is yours, which do you choose.

  20. “After God finished the creation, He proclaimed that the entire creation was “very good,” and this included man’s hardwired memory, or basic human instincts. Then came the serpent who injected something (the first GMO – genetically modified organism) into man using the forbidden fruit; this fruit changed man’s DNA, man now had the “sinful nature;”

    The Serpent injected something…it was something that altered our DNA as designed by God. The serpent, something God created stepped forward and “ruined” as it were, what God created. God was pleased with what He created and said it was good.
    How come the d-evil has that sort of power to alter the good work of God? And did God just accept the corruption of His work by the serpent?

    1. Designing a robot is easy; designing a creature with free will is difficult; it is risky. God took the risk and was pleased when the creatures turned out but disappointed when they didn’t. This is true for us as well. We can be a delight or a disappointment.

  21. I came to your website looking for an answer to how Cain became the first murderer. I have studied the serpent seed doctrine, but biblically, the theory that Satan had sex with eve still leaves all sorts of unanswered questions. So I am back to the fruit issue. My own theory right now is, that the sin that was in the fruit that Eve and then Adam ate, was contaminated with Satan’s sinful dna somehow, and as a result of both Eve and Adam eating it, Cain, their first offspring, was a potent mix of corrupted dna ( from Satan) and that is why he was a murderer. He was like a freshly corrupted product of Adam and Eve’s sin if that makes since. Any thoughts on this? Am I off in left field here?

  22. “The answer is yes, sin nature is hardwired in us and in our DNA. We are not forced to sin, but we have the tendency to sin. This is not a God given tendency, but rather a result of Adam eating the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden some 6000 years ago.”

    If our “sinful” nature is hardwired into our DNA, how can that possibly be anyone’s responsibility other than God? God must be responsible for designing Adam in such a way that he had this sinful nature, and if he subsequently modified Adam’s DNA so that his offspring would inherit that sinful nature, that is also down to God. He didn’t have to modify Adam’s DNA, but he did.

    As far as I can see, if God created everything, then he’s 100% responsible for the way it turns out. No ifs or buts. We can avoid responsibility for the consequences of our actions precisely because we aren’t 100% aware of what they will be, but God has no such excuse.

  23. Sons of God were the elohim, the Watchers in Enoch.
    They had sex with the human women and created the nephilim.
    The fallen angels, elohim, were cast into bondage. The nephilim died and became the demons, disembodied spirits. Dr. Michael Heiser elobrates on this at The Naked Bible.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.