What do you think?
Rate this book
Genetic Entropy
Genetic Entropy presents compelling scientific evidence that the genomes of all living creatures are slowly degenerating - due to the accumulation of slightly harmful mutations. This is happening in spite of natural selection. The author of this book, Dr. John Sanford, is a Cornell University geneticist. Dr. Sanford has devoted more than 10 years of his life to the study of this specific problem. Arguably, he has examined this problem in greater depth than any other scientist. The evidences that he presents are diverse and compelling. He begins by examining how random mutation and natural selection actually operate, and shows that simple logic demands that genomes must degenerate. He then makes a historical examination of the relevant field (population genetics), and shows that the best scientists in that field have consistently acknowledged many of the fundamental problems he has uncovered (but they have failed to communicate these problems to the broader scientific community). He then shows, in collaboration with a team of other scientists, that state-of-the-art numerical simulation experiments consistently confirm the problem of genetic degeneration (even given very strong selection and optimal conditions). Lastly, in collaboration with other scientists, he shows that real biological populations clearly manifest genetic degeneration.
Dr. Sanford's findings have enormous implications. His work largely invalidates classic neo-Darwinian theory. The mutation/selection process by itself is not capable of creating the new biological information that is required for creating new life forms. Dr. Sanford shows that not only is mutation/selection incapable of creating our genomes - it can't even preserve our genomes. As biochemist Dr. Michael Behe of Lehigh University writes in his review of Genetic Entropy , "...not only does Darwinism not have answers for how information got into the genome, it doesn't even have answers for how it could remain there." Dr. Sanford has coined the term "genetic entropy" to describe this fatal flaw of neo-Darwinian theory. This fundamental problem has been something of a trade-secret within the field of population genetics, with the rest of the world largely being kept in the dark. Fortunately, this book finally discloses this very serious problem, using language that is for the most part accessible to all scholars and students having a basic understanding of biology.
This new edition of Genetic Entropy includes numerous new lines of evidence supporting Dr. Sanford's thesis. Much of this new evidence is from recently published scientific papers that are now part of the scientific literature. Genetic Entropy is a must-read for any thoughtful person who in interested in science.
Dr. Sanford ends his book by asking two questions. First, if our genome did not actually arise via the accumulation of genetic "word-processing errors" (as is claimed), how did it arise? Second, if our genomes are undergoing relentless degeneration - where can we possibly place our hope for the future?
Dr. Sanford's findings have enormous implications. His work largely invalidates classic neo-Darwinian theory. The mutation/selection process by itself is not capable of creating the new biological information that is required for creating new life forms. Dr. Sanford shows that not only is mutation/selection incapable of creating our genomes - it can't even preserve our genomes. As biochemist Dr. Michael Behe of Lehigh University writes in his review of Genetic Entropy , "...not only does Darwinism not have answers for how information got into the genome, it doesn't even have answers for how it could remain there." Dr. Sanford has coined the term "genetic entropy" to describe this fatal flaw of neo-Darwinian theory. This fundamental problem has been something of a trade-secret within the field of population genetics, with the rest of the world largely being kept in the dark. Fortunately, this book finally discloses this very serious problem, using language that is for the most part accessible to all scholars and students having a basic understanding of biology.
This new edition of Genetic Entropy includes numerous new lines of evidence supporting Dr. Sanford's thesis. Much of this new evidence is from recently published scientific papers that are now part of the scientific literature. Genetic Entropy is a must-read for any thoughtful person who in interested in science.
Dr. Sanford ends his book by asking two questions. First, if our genome did not actually arise via the accumulation of genetic "word-processing errors" (as is claimed), how did it arise? Second, if our genomes are undergoing relentless degeneration - where can we possibly place our hope for the future?
270 pages, Paperback
First published October 25, 2005
79 people are currently reading
535 people want to read
About the author
J.C. Sanford
7 books22 followersJohn C. Sanford is an American geneticist and inventor. From 1980 to 1998 he was a professor at Cornell University. After retirement at Cornell, he continued as courtesy professor. He is known for advocacy of the pseudoscience of intelligent design.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 51 reviews
December 18, 2013
There are enough nails in the coffin of evolutionary theory to build a battleship. Dr. Sanford adds several more with this powerful book that discredits the so called Primary Axiom that underpins evolution. The book is reasonably easy to read for anyone with a modest scientific education. Dr. Sanford includes a number of helpful analogies, such as improving a text book and building a space ship.
To illustrate the crumbling support for evolution, the book includes a number of quotes from scientific papers, whose authors delicately try to avoid saying how improbable the entire evolutionary facade is. They sound like they are trying to avoid mentioning the black sheep of the family who turned to a life of crime.
If those in support of evolution wish to respond, this book sets the bar in the field of population genetics.
Dr. Sanford nails his colours to the mast with this book. He deserves much support for it. Highly recommended.
To illustrate the crumbling support for evolution, the book includes a number of quotes from scientific papers, whose authors delicately try to avoid saying how improbable the entire evolutionary facade is. They sound like they are trying to avoid mentioning the black sheep of the family who turned to a life of crime.
If those in support of evolution wish to respond, this book sets the bar in the field of population genetics.
Dr. Sanford nails his colours to the mast with this book. He deserves much support for it. Highly recommended.
January 18, 2015
I am studying evolutionary biology at university, and have been studying it for several years before that as a personal passion. I enjoy debating with proponents of intelligent design via facebook or youtube as it helps me work on my arguments and lets me know what arguments I will have to face in my professional career. These are cordial, good-spirited debates (for the most part), and it was after one such debate when my opponent gracefully quit the field that he recommended this book, saying that while he didn't have answers for me this book could do provide them much more eloquently than he could. It is in such a way that I have read Darwin's Black Box and other creationist literature, so once I managed to borrow a copy from my local library I started to flick through it.
Oh boy.
Mr Sanford starts off his book with the following statements:
1. Mutations are like misspellings in the "instruction manual".
2. There no "clear cases of information-creating mutations".
3. The few beneficial mutations that occur are nearly neutral.
4. Repeated selection experiments in plant breeding have resulted in "no meaningful crop improvement"
5. Geneticists never see beneficial mutations.
1. is incorrect, as while the 'instruction manual' analogy is useful it isn't entirely accurate. DNA is a more like a mixture of a manual and a recipe, and mutations are more like new ingredients/measurements or ways of using existing ingredients/measurements. In the whole run of things though, this is only a minor gripe.
2. This is just flat-out wrong. Gene and genome duplication give extra copies of genes, sometimes even doubling the amount of genetic information in the genome. But, some creationists will cry, this isn't new information, just copies of old information. Mutations are then free to modify these duplicated genes, which are often shielded for a number of generations. Mutations don't create entirely new genes from scratch, the theory of evolution has never claimed that this occurs and more importantly does not rely on this claim, unfortunately for Mr Sanford. Also, like most creationists, Sanford never actually defines 'information', leaving th validity of this argument doubtful from the very beginning
3. This is a more subtle point, but Sanford goes wrong by claiming that this means that beneficial mutations could therefore never be selected for. If a mutation provides an organism with a 1% increase in its chances of surviving to reproduction then statistically this should become fixed in the population within a few hundred generations. Claiming that Richard Lenski removed the beneficial mutations from his models because they had too little effect is also wrong, they were removed because they became fixed at unrealistic rates in those models and so were removed for having too LARGE an effect.
4. Coming from a plant geneticist this is nothing short of staggering. Indeed I know of at least one case that contradicts it: starting with 163 ears of corn Leng (1962) was able to increase oil content of kernels from 4-6% to about 16% within 60 generations using artificial selection. That may not count as "meaningful crop improvement" in Sanford's book, but it does in mine. Perhaps, rather like Ray Comfort, Sanford is also ignorant about the massive changes that have resulted in the domestication of the banana. And let's not forget the two instances of hybridisation over the last million years that gave rise to the allohexaploid bread wheat.
5. First of all, directly contradicts point 3. Second, it is as demonstrably wrong as his second and fourth points. As for an example of beneficial mutation, I'm afraid I'm going to have to quote directly from a website, as biochemistry is certainly not my strong suit and the article in question explains it far better than I could.
"Apolipoprotein AI-Milano. Heart disease is one of the scourges of industrialized countries. It's the legacy of an evolutionary past which programmed us to crave energy-dense fats, once a rare and valuable source of calories, now a source of clogged arteries. But there's evidence that evolution has the potential to deal with it.
All humans have a gene for a protein called Apolipoprotein AI, which is part of the system that transports cholesterol through the bloodstream. Apo-AI is one of the HDLs, already known to be beneficial because they remove cholesterol from artery walls. But a small community in Italy is known to have a mutant version of this protein, named Apolipoprotein AI-Milano, or Apo-AIM for short. Apo-AIM is even more effective than Apo-AI at removing cholesterol from cells and dissolving arterial plaques, and additionally functions as an antioxidant, preventing some of the damage from inflammation that normally occurs in arteriosclerosis. People with the Apo-AIM gene have significantly lower levels of risk than the general population for heart attack and stroke, and pharmaceutical companies are looking into marketing an artificial version of the protein as a cardioprotective drug."
http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/...
The article gives more examples of beneficial mutations.
I do not have any professional qualifications yet, while Sanford does, but when he provides demonstrably incorrect claims regarding his own field of science I must say that this man cannot and should be taken seriously in regards to the feasibility or otherwise of evolution.
Oh boy.
Mr Sanford starts off his book with the following statements:
1. Mutations are like misspellings in the "instruction manual".
2. There no "clear cases of information-creating mutations".
3. The few beneficial mutations that occur are nearly neutral.
4. Repeated selection experiments in plant breeding have resulted in "no meaningful crop improvement"
5. Geneticists never see beneficial mutations.
1. is incorrect, as while the 'instruction manual' analogy is useful it isn't entirely accurate. DNA is a more like a mixture of a manual and a recipe, and mutations are more like new ingredients/measurements or ways of using existing ingredients/measurements. In the whole run of things though, this is only a minor gripe.
2. This is just flat-out wrong. Gene and genome duplication give extra copies of genes, sometimes even doubling the amount of genetic information in the genome. But, some creationists will cry, this isn't new information, just copies of old information. Mutations are then free to modify these duplicated genes, which are often shielded for a number of generations. Mutations don't create entirely new genes from scratch, the theory of evolution has never claimed that this occurs and more importantly does not rely on this claim, unfortunately for Mr Sanford. Also, like most creationists, Sanford never actually defines 'information', leaving th validity of this argument doubtful from the very beginning
3. This is a more subtle point, but Sanford goes wrong by claiming that this means that beneficial mutations could therefore never be selected for. If a mutation provides an organism with a 1% increase in its chances of surviving to reproduction then statistically this should become fixed in the population within a few hundred generations. Claiming that Richard Lenski removed the beneficial mutations from his models because they had too little effect is also wrong, they were removed because they became fixed at unrealistic rates in those models and so were removed for having too LARGE an effect.
4. Coming from a plant geneticist this is nothing short of staggering. Indeed I know of at least one case that contradicts it: starting with 163 ears of corn Leng (1962) was able to increase oil content of kernels from 4-6% to about 16% within 60 generations using artificial selection. That may not count as "meaningful crop improvement" in Sanford's book, but it does in mine. Perhaps, rather like Ray Comfort, Sanford is also ignorant about the massive changes that have resulted in the domestication of the banana. And let's not forget the two instances of hybridisation over the last million years that gave rise to the allohexaploid bread wheat.
5. First of all, directly contradicts point 3. Second, it is as demonstrably wrong as his second and fourth points. As for an example of beneficial mutation, I'm afraid I'm going to have to quote directly from a website, as biochemistry is certainly not my strong suit and the article in question explains it far better than I could.
"Apolipoprotein AI-Milano. Heart disease is one of the scourges of industrialized countries. It's the legacy of an evolutionary past which programmed us to crave energy-dense fats, once a rare and valuable source of calories, now a source of clogged arteries. But there's evidence that evolution has the potential to deal with it.
All humans have a gene for a protein called Apolipoprotein AI, which is part of the system that transports cholesterol through the bloodstream. Apo-AI is one of the HDLs, already known to be beneficial because they remove cholesterol from artery walls. But a small community in Italy is known to have a mutant version of this protein, named Apolipoprotein AI-Milano, or Apo-AIM for short. Apo-AIM is even more effective than Apo-AI at removing cholesterol from cells and dissolving arterial plaques, and additionally functions as an antioxidant, preventing some of the damage from inflammation that normally occurs in arteriosclerosis. People with the Apo-AIM gene have significantly lower levels of risk than the general population for heart attack and stroke, and pharmaceutical companies are looking into marketing an artificial version of the protein as a cardioprotective drug."
http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/...
The article gives more examples of beneficial mutations.
I do not have any professional qualifications yet, while Sanford does, but when he provides demonstrably incorrect claims regarding his own field of science I must say that this man cannot and should be taken seriously in regards to the feasibility or otherwise of evolution.
March 25, 2016
This book is a devastating treatment of the "primary axiom" of evolutionary thinking. Some amazing stuff here.
October 8, 2013
Mutations lead to disease, aging, birth defects and lose of information. Evolution is based on random mutations with natural selection to increase variation, diversity and complexity. The book is an analysis on the genetic level of how evolution between types of organisms is not possible. Very good!
December 19, 2010
I cannot thank Dr. Sanford enough for the case he presented in this humble book. Not only was it well sourced, well written, and easy for the "lay" reader to understand, Dr. Sanford approached the issue as objectively as possible, with very little bias. I have not yet formed a complete opinion on this topic, but I appreciate the way he came to his conclusions. If you are looking for better answers than you have gotten before, this book will put you on track.
August 29, 2012
A good book on problems with the theory of Evolution from the point of view of genetics. Written by a real geneticist, it is worth reading if you are interested in the topic.
November 6, 2013
"Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome" is essentially a science book looking at how genomes degenerate over time and how this is a problem for macro-evolution theory. He started off with a fairly basic explanation of how mutations and natural selection are supposed to create new, beneficial information. I think anyone could follow this. He then delved into the reality of genetic mutations and how even a beneficial mutation wouldn't survive the overall degeneration of the genome to do any good.
Even as someone who took some college level biology and genetics classes, I had to concentrate hard to follow all of what he was saying. It helped that he'd use common-place analogies to explain his point for a lay person, but I think you have to be very interested in the topic to read it completely through. It'll probably most appeal to those who work with genetics or in biology.
Even as someone who took some college level biology and genetics classes, I had to concentrate hard to follow all of what he was saying. It helped that he'd use common-place analogies to explain his point for a lay person, but I think you have to be very interested in the topic to read it completely through. It'll probably most appeal to those who work with genetics or in biology.
April 1, 2020
The idea of genetic decline overtime is well presented and appeals to one's common sense. On page 96 Sandford refers to selection of the luckiest, which struck me as a very accurate depiction of what really happens. His point about pandemics of the 20th century displaying reduce virulence (pg 155) is relevant to COVID-19, giving us hope that it too will run its course. I appreciate the decay curve on pg 168 for human life expectancy. This was interesting.
September 22, 2010
I'm only reading this as a favor to a friend!
Update: terrible book. The author took way too long to make any point, and when he did, his logic was inconsistent with itself.
Update: terrible book. The author took way too long to make any point, and when he did, his logic was inconsistent with itself.
March 14, 2021
When doing battle with the White Witch, Edmund gets a kudos from Lewis for being wise enough to attack the witch's wand rather than herself directly. Sanford does something similar here. Most creationists focus on how bad the odds of evolution happening are, and these arguments have already fatally wounded evolutionary theory in times past (e.g. Behe). To be sure, Sanford covers some of the same terrain here, but he spends more time than anyone else thoroughly interrogating "selection" as a force and explaining what it can and cannot feasibly accomplish. The answer, it turns out, is precious little, not even enough to keep genome from actively degenerating.
I found him giving words to problems I had sensed (if not clearly defined) while studying genetics during my undergrad years. For example, he points out there is a severe disjunct between what selection needs to accomplish (fine-tuning miniscule, "near neutral" mutations with little impact on the genome (or organism) overall) and the tools it has to do it (saying "yes" or "no" to the entire genome (or organism)). Most "near neutral" mutations simply don't have enough overall impact to even be seen by selective processes. To compound that problem, differential survival and reproduction is driven much more by random chance ("noise") than by genomic changes overall. When you add the fact that the genome is accumulating bad mutations at a steady rate, you realize that time makes the problem worse, not better. And if you like that argument, read the book, as there's more where that came from.
To address a potential "authority-bluster" counter-argument, even I was initially wondering if this book could really contain any revolutionary arguments since it hasn't made much of a splash. However, I realized the silence shouldn't have surprised me. At this point in history, evolutionary theory has philosophically retreated into it's frozen, academic fortress. Furthermore, secular materialism (the dominant philosophy animating evolutionary theory) is giving it a constant stream of supplies, such that, evolutionary thinking will likely only topple when it does. Either that, or the secularists might come up with a better theory, more worthy of their support. In this kind of climate, it's no wonder that Sanford essentially ended up preaching to the choir, even if he (and I) wish he could do more. To conclude, this really is a stellar book, with some genuinely top-rate, original thinking. I highly recommend it.
I found him giving words to problems I had sensed (if not clearly defined) while studying genetics during my undergrad years. For example, he points out there is a severe disjunct between what selection needs to accomplish (fine-tuning miniscule, "near neutral" mutations with little impact on the genome (or organism) overall) and the tools it has to do it (saying "yes" or "no" to the entire genome (or organism)). Most "near neutral" mutations simply don't have enough overall impact to even be seen by selective processes. To compound that problem, differential survival and reproduction is driven much more by random chance ("noise") than by genomic changes overall. When you add the fact that the genome is accumulating bad mutations at a steady rate, you realize that time makes the problem worse, not better. And if you like that argument, read the book, as there's more where that came from.
To address a potential "authority-bluster" counter-argument, even I was initially wondering if this book could really contain any revolutionary arguments since it hasn't made much of a splash. However, I realized the silence shouldn't have surprised me. At this point in history, evolutionary theory has philosophically retreated into it's frozen, academic fortress. Furthermore, secular materialism (the dominant philosophy animating evolutionary theory) is giving it a constant stream of supplies, such that, evolutionary thinking will likely only topple when it does. Either that, or the secularists might come up with a better theory, more worthy of their support. In this kind of climate, it's no wonder that Sanford essentially ended up preaching to the choir, even if he (and I) wish he could do more. To conclude, this really is a stellar book, with some genuinely top-rate, original thinking. I highly recommend it.
October 18, 2023
4.5 stars // read October 2023
This book was required reading for my Genetics class.
The theory of evolution is built on the idea that man is the result of mutations plus natural selection. Our knowledge of genetics has increased exponentially just within the last 20 years (the completion of the Human Genome Project was in 2003)- does what we see play out in the real world actually match evolutionary assumptions? Sanford uses genetics to examine this premise (what he dubs the “Primary Axiom”)- and the results might surprise you.
Recommended for: Christians who have an interest in science- Sanford actively tries to make it accessible, so it’s not drenched in overly technical language. I might be biased, but I think it would be especially helpful for Christian students in STEM fields who are wrestling with the naturalistic ideology behind the concepts they are learning.
This book was required reading for my Genetics class.
The theory of evolution is built on the idea that man is the result of mutations plus natural selection. Our knowledge of genetics has increased exponentially just within the last 20 years (the completion of the Human Genome Project was in 2003)- does what we see play out in the real world actually match evolutionary assumptions? Sanford uses genetics to examine this premise (what he dubs the “Primary Axiom”)- and the results might surprise you.
Recommended for: Christians who have an interest in science- Sanford actively tries to make it accessible, so it’s not drenched in overly technical language. I might be biased, but I think it would be especially helpful for Christian students in STEM fields who are wrestling with the naturalistic ideology behind the concepts they are learning.
February 15, 2019
Anyone who can make genotype/phenotype mutation understandable deserves five stars. Not only that, but Sanford made it fascinating, with references to the Princess and the Pea, and other classics. Well done. I was surprised by the last chapter, the author’s preface or something like that, which was much more satisfying than Behe’s Black Box. Sanford ends his last official chapter mentioning no other alternatives than intelligent design, but then goes on to preach Jesus loud and clear. Well done.
Most interesting part of the book: apparently the lengths of the lives in the Bible follow a very mathematical and biological decay line. The author concluded that either these numbers could have been cooked up (and that the writers were somehow two-thousand years advanced in their calculations) or that they are simply true. Indeed.
Most alarming part: I don’t think I’ve heard of this whole 5% fitness degeneration with each generation before. Concerning. Confusing. Is the world going to pot?
Most interesting part of the book: apparently the lengths of the lives in the Bible follow a very mathematical and biological decay line. The author concluded that either these numbers could have been cooked up (and that the writers were somehow two-thousand years advanced in their calculations) or that they are simply true. Indeed.
Most alarming part: I don’t think I’ve heard of this whole 5% fitness degeneration with each generation before. Concerning. Confusing. Is the world going to pot?
February 23, 2012
An interesting book.
Dr. Sanford is clearly very smart, and he knows his material well. And the topic is fascinating, and very possibly supports Sanford's contention that genetic deterioration is the rule in biological systems. But there was, I felt, a lack of accessibility of some of his arguments: too many of the logical links between the data and the conclusions were rushed over. But this is one of the challenges of writing science for the public: sometimes the material itself is difficult. Bottom line: the book is worth reading for exposure to its central thesis, but would have benefited from an editor or two.
Dr. Sanford is clearly very smart, and he knows his material well. And the topic is fascinating, and very possibly supports Sanford's contention that genetic deterioration is the rule in biological systems. But there was, I felt, a lack of accessibility of some of his arguments: too many of the logical links between the data and the conclusions were rushed over. But this is one of the challenges of writing science for the public: sometimes the material itself is difficult. Bottom line: the book is worth reading for exposure to its central thesis, but would have benefited from an editor or two.
July 6, 2016
A geneticist from Cornell explains why the Primary Axiom (i.e., mutations + natural selection = boundless evolution) cannot hope to account for the existence and diversity of life on Earth. He also shows why humanity's gene pool is steadily and irreversibly degenerating at an alarming rate--a process that will result in our ultimate extinction long before such things as the heat death of the universe ever become an issue. Far from constantly evolving, the human race is going downhill (genetically speaking) with each successive generation.
This book is packed with fascinating information, though Sanford's prose is very dry, and some of the more technical bits went completely over my head.
This book is packed with fascinating information, though Sanford's prose is very dry, and some of the more technical bits went completely over my head.
January 3, 2020
It makes you lose faith in the Scientific establishment
Although not a biologist, I find the arguments and data used by the author very convincing. Although the conclusion is 'Jesus is the only hope' (I am an agnostic), this is mentioned only in the end, and 99.9% of the book is scientific and logical facts. Even if repetitive at times, the arguments used are solid. For someone not trained in genetics there's a lot of info, skillfully communicated through familiar examples.
Given all the presented arguments, it makes you wonder how Evolution theory survived for so long and mutated into the answer to every difficult biological question...
Although not a biologist, I find the arguments and data used by the author very convincing. Although the conclusion is 'Jesus is the only hope' (I am an agnostic), this is mentioned only in the end, and 99.9% of the book is scientific and logical facts. Even if repetitive at times, the arguments used are solid. For someone not trained in genetics there's a lot of info, skillfully communicated through familiar examples.
Given all the presented arguments, it makes you wonder how Evolution theory survived for so long and mutated into the answer to every difficult biological question...
April 28, 2016
An excellent refutation of the Primary Axiom and evolution based on a study of genetics. The author is himself a geneticist who used to also be an evolutionist. But his work in the field of genetics has convinced him that the Primary Axiom is a flawed theory that is not supported by science. For many years, I have believed that evolution runs contrary to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and Sandford's deep-dive into genetic entropy proves this out. The one thing the human genome definitively shows is entropy and inevitable extinction.
November 3, 2016
Overall, this book offers a very strong argument for a young Universe.
Because mutations accumulate so quickly in the genome and such a devastating proportion of them are either neutral or negative, it is quite simply impossible for life to have existed for billions of years.
On the other hand, I will agree with other reviews I saw in that Dr. Sanford could have greatly benefited from having an editor or two go through this book.
Because mutations accumulate so quickly in the genome and such a devastating proportion of them are either neutral or negative, it is quite simply impossible for life to have existed for billions of years.
On the other hand, I will agree with other reviews I saw in that Dr. Sanford could have greatly benefited from having an editor or two go through this book.
September 13, 2017
This was a thought-provoking book on some often-overlooked aspects of why biological evolution is implausible. It has very high level thinking in it, but as long as you're okay with that, I think you would find it intriguing and helpful. The man who wrote it is a PhD in plant genetics and not directly connected with any official creation organization as far as I can tell, but merely sharing how his own research led him to conclude that evolution, which he had always held to, was impossible.
September 28, 2017
Best book for Christian apologetics in the field of genetics, or molecular and cellular biology. JC Sanford is a credible and highly recognized scientist who desires the truth and provides source documents and citations to prove that. His work in his field is unprecedented and his book lays out this information for an easy read.
April 10, 2019
I read this book to educate myself and enlarge my borders. I'm not scientifically inclined and had to take my time (6 months) getting through it. After finding Dr. Sanford's video lectures online, my progress and understanding of what is written in the book became a lot easier. Although it was a challenge, I would highly recommend this book.
April 26, 2014
Brilliant! An irrefutable treatise with more than adequate evidence to totally undermine the "Primary Axiom": That all life was formed by blind purposeless chance, that sentience evolved from non-sentience. Well done indeed.
June 15, 2015
A devastating critique of the central axiom of Darwinian evolution--blind natural selection--using the latest in genetic research. Not for the faint of heart, unless you have a firm grasp on biology and genetics, but well worth the read.
December 5, 2015
Sanford delivered concise arguments, supported by published research papers from a wide variety of authors. This is easy to read for the interested layman, and provided lots of new information not captured by other authors like Behe.
January 1, 2016
As a student studying genetics at University this book offered an insightful view into the fallacy of the primary axiom. From taking population genetics and molecular genetics I was really able to understand the depth of this book. It definitely opened my eyes.
March 25, 2016
Genetic Entropy is a fantastic book that clearly shows the impossibility of Darwinian evolution. It should be read by every biologist, Christian or otherwise. Canon Press will be selling them at the conference. If you're not a biologist, get one for a friend or relative who is!
Read
March 31, 2010Very good arguments showing the impossiblity of the typical argument for evolution based on Genetics. Very good read.
September 2, 2025
Very good discussion regarding the issues of random mutation and natural selection.
October 6, 2014
Outstanding book
May 22, 2017
Great book. Exceeded expectations. Very solid argument.
December 2, 2018
One of the most compelling and comprehensive books on a very important but overlooked scientific observation: the human genome is irreversibly falling apart more every generation.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 51 reviews