As in the Days of Noah: Are We Redesigning Humanity?

Watch this on Rumble: https://rumble.com/v7glp6o-as-in-the-days-of-noah-are-we-redesigning-humanity.html

Opening — Why Did Jesus Choose Noah?

Welcome to Cause Before Symptom, where we don’t chase symptoms—we test the cause against Scripture.

Tonight, I want to begin with something Jesus said that I believe deserves far more attention than we normally give it. In Matthew 24:37, He declared, “But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” I want you to consider that statement carefully. Jesus could have pointed to the Tower of Babel, the rebellion of Israel, the days of Pharaoh, or the wickedness of countless kings. But He chose Noah. He deliberately directed our attention to a civilization that existed before the Flood. And tonight, I want to investigate why.

Because when I return to Genesis 6, I don't find an ordinary account of human rebellion. I find the sons of God taking the daughters of men. I find the Nephilim. I find a world filled with violence, and I find God declaring that all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth. Then I open 1 Enoch, and the account becomes even more disturbing. The Watchers descend, cross boundaries they were never meant to cross, and introduce knowledge that contributes to the destruction of the world around them. Whatever conclusions we eventually reach, we cannot pretend these passages don't exist.

Now consider what is happening in our world. Scientists are using artificial intelligence to design proteins that perform chemical reactions not ordinarily found in nature. Researchers are editing genetic material, engineering living cells, connecting machines to human nervous systems, and exploring ways to alter biological functions. Governments are funding these technologies, corporations are commercializing them, and researchers are pushing the boundaries of what biology can accomplish. Some applications are intended to heal disease, restore lost abilities, and clean up environmental contamination. Those benefits deserve recognition. But so do the questions that follow.

Because tonight's investigation is not about claiming that one artificial enzyme is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. That would be an enormous leap, and I refuse to make it without evidence. This investigation is about something much larger. Humanity is developing the ability to redesign biological systems, and the distinction between repairing what God created and fundamentally altering it is becoming an increasingly important question.

And that brings me to Daniel 2:43, where Scripture describes iron mixed with miry clay and says, “They shall mingle themselves with the seed of men.” Who are they? What is being mingled? Is Daniel describing political alliances, something involving the nature of humanity, or a meaning we have not yet fully understood? We will examine the text rather than force an interpretation upon it.

We will also return to Jesus' own explanation of Noah's days. He spoke of people eating, drinking, marrying, and carrying on with ordinary life until judgment arrived. That warning is explicit. But does His reference also invite us to remember the extraordinary events recorded in Genesis 6? That is a question worth investigating, especially alongside Jude, Second Peter, and the account preserved in 1 Enoch.

Tonight, I am not asking you to fear science. I am asking you to examine where science is going, who is directing it, and what boundaries should govern it. Because the most important question may not be whether humanity possesses the intelligence to redesign itself. It may be whether humanity possesses the wisdom to know when it should stop. And before we can answer that, we need to understand what scientists are actually creating.

Investigation 1 — When Did Humanity Begin Programming Biology?

For thousands of years, humanity has studied living organisms to understand how they function. Scientists examined plants, animals, bacteria, and the human body, discovering systems of extraordinary complexity. But something fundamental is changing. Instead of merely observing biological processes, researchers are increasingly designing them. They are moving from asking what nature can do to asking what they can make nature do. And that distinction is where tonight's investigation begins.

To understand this transformation, we need to understand enzymes. An enzyme is usually a protein that accelerates a chemical reaction without being consumed by that reaction. Your body depends on thousands of them. They help digest food, produce energy, repair cellular components, and maintain the chemistry necessary for life. For generations, scientists discovered enzymes in nature and adapted them for medicine, manufacturing, agriculture, and other purposes. But nature does not provide an enzyme optimized for every chemical reaction humanity might want to perform.

Artificial intelligence is beginning to change that limitation. Researchers can now use computational systems to predict protein structures, explore enormous numbers of possible molecular arrangements, and propose entirely new protein designs. Those designs must still be produced and tested experimentally. A computer prediction does not guarantee that a protein will function. Nevertheless, scientists can now investigate possibilities that would have been extraordinarily difficult to discover through conventional experimentation alone.

Consider the enzyme research that led us into this investigation. Scientists are exploring AI-assisted methods for designing enzymes capable of reactions involving chemicals that natural enzymes do not ordinarily process. Among the reported experimental targets are nitrene-transfer reactions, which can help construct valuable chemical bonds, and reactions involving DEHP, a chemical used in certain flexible plastics. The potential applications include pharmaceutical manufacturing, industrial chemistry, and environmental treatment. These are research objectives, not evidence that the particular enzymes have been released into the environment or incorporated into human beings.

But something important has happened. The scientist is no longer limited to searching nature for an existing biological tool. The scientist can increasingly specify a desired chemical function and attempt to design a protein that performs it. Think about the implications. Biology becomes something that can be engineered toward a predetermined objective. Not perfectly, not without experimental failures, and certainly not without physical limitations. But the direction is unmistakable.

Now, I want to make an important distinction. Designing an enzyme is not the same as editing human DNA. It is not the same as creating a synthetic organism, and it is not the same as connecting a human brain to a computer. Those are different technologies with different risks. However, they belong to a broader scientific movement in which biological functions are becoming increasingly controllable, modifiable, and programmable.

And this is where my concern begins. A technology developed to treat pollution may be beneficial. A therapy that restores someone's ability to walk may be an extraordinary achievement. But as our capabilities expand, we must ask whether every possible biological modification should be pursued simply because it has become technically achievable. The existence of a capability does not settle its moral purpose.

Scripture tells us in Genesis 1 that God created living things according to their kinds and humanity in His image. That passage establishes a theological foundation for examining human responsibility, but it does not provide a modern laboratory classification of permissible and impermissible technologies. We must be careful not to claim otherwise.

So tonight, our first discovery is not that scientists have created a new form of humanity. They have not demonstrated that through this enzyme research. Our discovery is that humanity is acquiring increasingly powerful tools to design biological functions. And that raises our next question: who is funding this transformation, and what do they intend to accomplish with it?

Investigation 2 — Who Is Funding the Redesign of Life?

Now that we understand what scientists are beginning to accomplish, we need to follow the money. Because whenever a technology has the potential to transform medicine, manufacturing, agriculture, and human biology, governments begin asking another question. Can this technology provide a military advantage? And when national security becomes involved, scientific development is no longer driven exclusively by curiosity or commercial opportunity. It also becomes a matter of strategic competition.

Consider the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, better known as DARPA. For years, DARPA has invested in biological engineering through programs such as Living Foundries, which sought to make biological production more predictable and adaptable. The objective was to develop methods for manufacturing useful molecules through engineered biological systems. Imagine producing specialized chemicals, materials, or medical compounds using living cells rather than depending entirely on conventional factories. For a military organization concerned about disrupted supply chains, that capability has obvious strategic value.

In 2024, DARPA announced research awards focused on the intersection of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and biology. Among the recipients was Arzeda, a company working in computational protein design. Arzeda has also pursued civilian industrial enzyme applications. That overlap is worth examining, but we must be precise. The existence of military funding and commercial partnerships within the same company does not establish that a particular military-funded invention entered a civilian product. To demonstrate that connection, we would need project records, intellectual-property documentation, and evidence identifying the actual technology transferred.

The United States is not alone. Britain's Defence Science and Technology Laboratory has supported engineering-biology competitions involving materials, sensing, and energy-related applications. British and American defence organizations have also cooperated on research opportunities in this field. NATO has examined synthetic biology as an emerging technology with implications for defence, resilience, and security. These initiatives do not all fund the same projects, but they demonstrate that biological engineering has become an international strategic concern.

Why does the military care? Consider a biological sensor that detects dangerous chemicals, an enzyme that helps neutralize a toxic substance, or a manufacturing system capable of producing critical medicines near the point of need. These technologies could protect soldiers, improve emergency response, and reduce dependence on vulnerable industrial infrastructure. The same general capabilities might also serve civilian hospitals, factories, and environmental cleanup operations. Military and civilian biotechnology can therefore develop along overlapping paths without sharing identical purposes.

But there is another side to this equation. When nations believe their competitors are developing strategically important technologies, they face pressure to accelerate their own research. Private companies seek investment, governments seek technological advantages, and scientists seek discoveries. None of those motivations automatically proves wrongdoing. Together, however, they create a powerful incentive to keep advancing, even while questions about oversight, unintended consequences, and long-term effects remain unresolved.

And I want to be clear about what our documents establish. We have evidence of defence interest, research funding, and programs intended to expand biological engineering capabilities. We do not have evidence that the particular AI-designed enzymes discussed tonight were secretly deployed in civilian populations, or that their researchers are conducting a hidden program to transform humanity.

So the question is not whether every military biotechnology project conceals a sinister purpose. That would go beyond the evidence. The question is what happens when governments and corporations acquire increasingly sophisticated control over biological systems, while the technologies themselves can serve both military and civilian purposes.

And that leads directly to our next investigation. Because designing an industrial enzyme is one thing. Using technology to alter the capabilities of the human body is something else entirely.

Investigation 3 — When Does Healing Become Human Enhancement?

We have established that scientists are learning to design biological functions and that governments recognize the strategic importance of those capabilities. But now we arrive at a question that reaches beyond laboratories, military contracts, and industrial manufacturing. What happens when the technology is no longer being used to change a chemical reaction or manufacture a useful substance? What happens when the object being modified is the human being? Because there is an enormous difference between developing a tool that serves humanity and developing a technology intended to change what humanity can become.

Consider what medicine can already accomplish. Gene therapies can address certain inherited disorders by introducing or modifying genetic material. Engineered immune cells can recognize and attack particular cancers. Cochlear implants can provide access to sound for some people with hearing loss, while brain-computer interfaces are being developed to help individuals with paralysis communicate or control external devices. These technologies are not imaginary. They represent genuine medical advances, although their effectiveness, limitations, and risks differ considerably. Their primary purpose is generally to treat disease or restore a function that has been lost.

But now imagine the objective changing. Instead of restoring ordinary vision, researchers pursue vision beyond normal human capabilities. Instead of treating a neurological disorder, engineers attempt to expand memory or cognitive performance through direct technological integration. Instead of correcting a harmful genetic mutation, scientists seek to introduce inherited characteristics selected according to human preferences. Some of these possibilities remain speculative or experimental, but they illustrate a fundamental distinction. The purpose has shifted from treating a medical condition toward enhancing human capabilities beyond their ordinary range.

This is where the philosophy of transhumanism enters our investigation. Transhumanism generally advocates using science and technology to overcome biological limitations, potentially including aging, disease, physical constraints, and cognitive limitations. Not every researcher developing a medical implant subscribes to that philosophy, and not every form of biotechnology represents a transhumanist project. Nevertheless, the growing ability to modify biology provides tools that could eventually serve some of those ambitions.

Now consider the ethical difficulty. Who determines what constitutes an improvement? If a technology allows a person to recover the ability to walk, many would recognize its therapeutic value. But if another technology promises to create a population with selected biological advantages, entirely different questions emerge. Who receives those advantages? Who controls the modifications? What happens to individuals who refuse them? And what if changes affect future generations who never had an opportunity to consent?

These questions become even more complicated when biological engineering intersects with artificial intelligence and machines. A device connected to the nervous system is not the same thing as an inherited genetic modification. Yet both demonstrate that the boundaries between human physiology and engineered technology can be altered. The existence of these capabilities does not mean humanity has already become something fundamentally different. It means decisions once confined to philosophy and science fiction are increasingly entering medical research and public policy.

And now I want to return to Scripture. Genesis 1:27 declares that God created mankind in His own image. Whatever conclusions we draw about biotechnology, that statement places human dignity before technological achievement. Our value does not depend upon superior intelligence, physical strength, or the ability to modify ourselves. It begins with the Creator.

So here is the question I want us to carry forward. If technology can restore what has been damaged, that is one conversation. But if humanity begins deliberately redefining itself according to its own ambitions, that is another. And before we decide where the boundary belongs, we must ask whether the institutions developing these technologies can establish and enforce meaningful limits.

Investigation 4 — Can Humanity Still Put Limits on What It Creates?

We have reached a point in this investigation where the question is no longer whether scientists possess the ability to alter biological systems. They do. The question is whether the institutions responsible for overseeing those technologies can keep pace with what is being developed. Because creating something in a laboratory is one accomplishment. Understanding what happens when that creation enters a human body, a manufacturing system, or the natural environment is another matter entirely.

The World Health Organization addressed part of this challenge in its 2021 framework for human genome editing. Its recommendations emphasized governance, transparency, international cooperation, and responsible oversight. The concern was not simply whether scientists could modify genetic material. It was whether those modifications would be appropriately evaluated, whether participants would be protected, and whether society could establish meaningful accountability. The distinction between treating disease and making changes that future generations might inherit remains particularly important.

The National Academies has examined related questions involving synthetic biology and synthetic cells. Its 2018 biodefense report considered how advances in biological engineering could create both beneficial capabilities and security risks. Its 2026 synthetic-cell report addressed biosafety, biosecurity, and environmental considerations, including uncertainties surrounding how engineered biological systems might behave outside controlled conditions. These publications do not establish that every synthetic system is dangerous. They establish that different technologies require different forms of evaluation, particularly when their behavior cannot be fully predicted.

Consider a simple example. Suppose researchers design an enzyme to break down a persistent industrial chemical. Inside a controlled experiment, that enzyme performs exactly as intended. But what happens when it encounters other compounds? Does it act on unintended molecules? How long does it remain active? What substances result from the reaction, and could those substances present hazards of their own? These questions cannot be answered merely by demonstrating that the enzyme works. They require appropriate testing, and the answers may differ depending on where and how the enzyme is used.

Now consider the regulatory structure. In the United States, different agencies oversee different applications of biotechnology. The Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, and Department of Agriculture have responsibilities that depend upon the product and its intended use. Other countries maintain their own systems. This does not mean there are no regulations. It means that oversight can become complicated when technologies cross traditional categories, especially when a product is developed internationally or has several possible applications.

And here is the difficulty I want us to recognize. Scientific research, commercial development, and military competition do not necessarily advance at the same speed as public understanding or regulatory reform. A government may consider a technology strategically important. A corporation may see an enormous market. A researcher may believe a discovery could save lives. All three motivations can be legitimate, yet none automatically answers whether every application is safe, ethical, or justified.

This is where responsibility becomes essential. Laboratory containment, independent evaluation, environmental monitoring, informed consent, and public accountability are not obstacles to knowledge. They are ways of ensuring that knowledge is exercised with care. And where evidence is incomplete, uncertainty should be acknowledged rather than concealed or exaggerated.

Scripture offers a principle worth considering. In 1 Corinthians 10:23, Paul writes, “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient.” His immediate subject was Christian conduct, not biotechnology, but the distinction between capability and wisdom remains instructive.

Because before we examine what happened in Noah's generation, we must confront a question facing our own: Just because humanity has learned how to change something, does that mean humanity has the wisdom to know whether it should?

Investigation 5 — What Actually Happened Before the Flood?

Now we leave the laboratories, government contracts, and scientific reports behind, and return to the Scriptures. Because before we can understand why Jesus referred to the days of Noah, we must understand what Scripture actually tells us about that generation. And I want to begin with something that often gets overlooked. The story of Noah does not begin with a boat. It begins with a world in which something had gone terribly wrong, long before the rain began falling.

Genesis 6 opens with humanity multiplying upon the earth. Then, in verse 2, we encounter an extraordinary statement: “That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.” Who were these sons of God? Why does Scripture distinguish them from the daughters of men? And why does this account appear immediately before God's declaration concerning the wickedness of the world? These are questions we cannot simply dismiss because they challenge our understanding of the ancient world.

There are several interpretations of this passage. Some understand the sons of God as descendants of Seth marrying women from Cain's line. Others identify them as powerful human rulers. But another ancient interpretation understands them as heavenly beings who crossed a boundary between their own realm and humanity. That interpretation is developed explicitly in 1 Enoch and finds important parallels in ancient Jewish literature. The text of Genesis itself does not explain every detail, so we must distinguish what it states from how later witnesses interpret it.

Then Genesis 6:4 introduces the Nephilim, describing mighty men of old, men of renown. The passage associates their appearance with the period when the sons of God came to the daughters of men and children were born. Whatever interpretation we adopt, this is not an incidental detail. Scripture deliberately places these events within its account of the world preceding the Flood.

But notice what happens next. Genesis 6:5 declares that God saw the wickedness of man was great upon the earth and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. By verse 11, the earth is described as corrupt before God and filled with violence. Then verse 12 states, “For all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.” The Hebrew expression translated as all flesh deserves careful attention. It can encompass living creatures, but this verse does not independently prove that every organism had undergone biological alteration. The passage establishes pervasive corruption; its precise nature must be understood from the surrounding context.

And this is where the account becomes especially serious. The problem was not simply that people occasionally committed evil acts. Genesis describes corruption so extensive that violence and wickedness characterized the world. God announces judgment, yet Noah finds grace in His eyes. Noah is described as righteous in his generation, a man who walked with God. The contrast is between a corrupt world and a man who remained faithful.

Now consider why this matters for tonight's investigation. Genesis 6 presents a world in which the sons of God, the daughters of men, the Nephilim, human wickedness, and widespread corruption appear together. It does not mention artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, or machines. We must not insert those technologies into the ancient text.

But it does leave us with a profound question. What exactly occurred between the sons of God and the daughters of men, and how did ancient readers understand the consequences? To investigate that, we must open 1 Enoch, where the account of the Watchers becomes far more detailed.

Investigation 6 — What Did the Watchers Teach Humanity?

Now we arrive at one of the most extraordinary accounts preserved in ancient religious literature. Genesis 6 tells us that the sons of God took the daughters of men and that the Nephilim appeared in those days. But the account is brief. It leaves questions about who these beings were, what they did, and why their actions preceded such catastrophic judgment. First Enoch, particularly chapters 6 through 11, provides a much more detailed account. And because 1 Enoch belongs to the Ethiopian Orthodox scriptural tradition, we cannot simply dismiss its testimony when examining this subject.

According to 1 Enoch 6, a group of heavenly beings known as the Watchers descended during the days of Jared. They agreed to take human wives, binding themselves together by an oath. Their leader is identified as Semjaza, while Azazel becomes particularly important in the account of forbidden instruction. These beings did not merely observe humanity. They entered into relationships with human women, and the resulting offspring became giants whose appetites and violence devastated the earth.

But the account does not stop with their offspring. First Enoch 8 describes knowledge being transmitted to humanity. Azazel teaches the making of swords, knives, shields, and breastplates, along with the working of metals and the use of ornaments and cosmetics. Other Watchers teach enchantments, astrology, celestial signs, and related practices. The significance is not that metallurgy or the observation of stars is inherently evil. Within Enoch's narrative, the problem is the unlawful transmission and misuse of knowledge, contributing to violence, corruption, and humanity's departure from righteousness.

Think carefully about that distinction. The Watchers account describes more than an act of sexual transgression. It describes heavenly beings crossing into the human realm, producing offspring, and introducing teachings that change the direction of civilization. Knowledge becomes an instrument of corruption rather than wisdom. Power increases, but righteousness does not. And the consequences extend beyond those who originally participated in the transgression.

In 1 Enoch 9, the suffering of the earth rises before heaven. The archangels appeal to God concerning the destruction taking place. In the following chapters, judgment is pronounced against the rebellious Watchers and their offspring. The account presents the corruption of the world as something that demands divine intervention, not merely a social problem that humanity can repair through better government or improved technology.

Now compare this with the New Testament. Jude 6 speaks of angels who did not keep their first estate but abandoned their proper habitation. Jude 7 then discusses sexual immorality and the pursuit of strange flesh in connection with Sodom and Gomorrah. Second Peter 2:4–5 places the judgment of sinning angels immediately before the account of Noah and the Flood. These passages are significant because they show that traditions concerning rebellious angels and ancient judgment were known within the world of the New Testament.

But we must maintain one important boundary in our own interpretation. Neither Jude nor Second Peter explicitly states that modern genetic engineering will reproduce the events of Genesis 6. Nor does 1 Enoch describe artificial intelligence or synthetic enzymes. Claiming otherwise would place modern concepts into ancient passages without textual evidence.

What these witnesses do establish is that the Watchers tradition concerns forbidden transgression, the misuse of knowledge, and devastating consequences for humanity. And that brings us to an unsettling question. If the ancient warning concerns beings crossing boundaries they were never authorized to cross, what should we make of Daniel's mysterious description of iron and clay mingling with the seed of men?

Investigation 7 — What Does It Mean to Mingle Iron With Clay?

Now we arrive at a passage that has fascinated students of biblical prophecy for centuries. In Daniel chapter 2, King Nebuchadnezzar dreams of an enormous statue. Its head is gold, its chest and arms are silver, its belly and thighs are bronze, its legs are iron, and its feet are a mixture of iron and clay. Daniel explains that these materials represent successive kingdoms. But when he reaches the feet, something changes. The final kingdom is divided, partly strong and partly fragile. And then Daniel makes a statement that deserves our careful attention.

Daniel 2:43 declares, “And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.” I want you to notice those words. They shall mingle themselves with the seed of men. Who are they? What is being mingled? And why does Daniel describe a mixture that cannot hold together?

The original Aramaic is important. The expression translated as “seed of men” refers to human offspring or human lineage. The language of mingling communicates an attempted mixture, but the passage does not explicitly identify the participants as angels, Watchers, or nonhuman beings. Its immediate context concerns the divided kingdom represented by the statue's feet. Many interpreters therefore understand the verse as describing political alliances, particularly marriage arrangements intended to unite competing ruling houses. Such alliances could create temporary connections without producing genuine unity.

But there is another interpretation that deserves examination. Some readers connect Daniel's language with Genesis 6, where the sons of God take the daughters of men and produce offspring. Within that interpretation, iron and clay represent fundamentally different orders attempting to combine. When we read Daniel alongside the Watchers account in 1 Enoch, the resemblance becomes understandable. Both discussions can be approached through the question of what happens when things that do not naturally belong together are brought into union.

However, resemblance is not identification. Genesis 6 names the sons of God. First Enoch identifies the Watchers. Daniel 2 does neither. The Aramaic wording alone cannot establish that the Watchers are the unnamed participants. If we claim that Daniel directly predicts angelic beings genetically modifying humanity, we have gone beyond what the passage explicitly says. That possibility may be proposed as a prophetic interpretation, but it cannot honestly be presented as a demonstrated translation.

There is another detail we must not overlook. Daniel's vision does not end with the mixture. A stone cut without human hands strikes the statue, destroys its kingdoms, and becomes a great mountain filling the earth. Daniel explains that God will establish a kingdom that shall never be destroyed. The central message is therefore not merely the instability of human power. It is the ultimate sovereignty of God over every kingdom humanity constructs.

And perhaps that is the most important connection to our present investigation. Modern civilization increasingly seeks to overcome limitations through technological power. Scientists can redesign proteins, alter genetic material, and connect machines with biological systems. Those developments do not prove Daniel's prophecy is being fulfilled. But they raise questions about humanity's confidence in its own ability to construct something enduring through combinations of increasingly powerful technologies.

So I want to leave Daniel's vision where Scripture leaves it: with the kingdom established by God, not with humanity's achievements. Whether iron and clay describe political alliances alone or carry an additional prophetic meaning remains a question requiring careful interpretation.

And now we return to the words of Jesus. Because when He described the circumstances surrounding His return, He pointed us back to Noah. Why that generation, and what exactly did He want us to remember?

Investigation 8 — Why Did Jesus Say the Days of Noah?

Now we return to the statement that started this entire investigation. In Matthew 24:37, Jesus declares, “But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” I want you to consider something. Jesus could have referred to the Tower of Babel, the rebellion in the wilderness, or the wickedness of Israel's kings. Yet He deliberately chose Noah. He directed His listeners to a civilization that existed before the Flood, a generation Scripture describes as corrupt, violent, and under divine judgment. Why did He choose that particular moment in human history?

To answer that question, we must first allow Jesus to explain His own comparison. In Matthew 24:38–39, He describes people eating, drinking, marrying, and giving in marriage until Noah entered the ark. They continued their ordinary activities until the Flood came and took them away. His warning concerns humanity's failure to recognize approaching judgment. Life appeared normal, even while destruction drew nearer. Jesus then applies the comparison to His own return, emphasizing the necessity of watchfulness and readiness.

But notice something important. Jesus does not say that every event from Noah's generation must happen again. He specifically identifies ordinary human activity and unexpected judgment. That is what the passage explicitly establishes. However, does that mean His listeners would have forgotten everything else Scripture records about the world before the Flood? Would a reference to Noah have carried no memory of Genesis 6, the sons of God, the Nephilim, and the corruption of all flesh?

Now consider Luke 17:26–30. Jesus again compares the coming days of the Son of Man to Noah's generation. But this time, He also mentions Lot. People were eating, drinking, buying, selling, planting, and building before destruction came upon Sodom. The inclusion of Lot is significant because it shows that Jesus was drawing attention to a recurring pattern of ordinary life continuing until divine judgment arrived. The comparison therefore cannot be reduced exclusively to the Watchers or the unusual events described in Genesis 6.

Nevertheless, the wider scriptural context remains worth examining. Second Peter chapter 2 places the judgment of sinning angels near its discussion of Noah and the Flood, before turning to Sodom and Gomorrah. Jude also speaks of angels abandoning their proper dwelling and subsequently discusses Sodom's sexual immorality. These passages show that early Christian teaching preserved connections among rebellious angels, ancient corruption, and divine judgment. They do not prove that Jesus intended every element of those traditions in Matthew 24, but they establish that the broader themes were not foreign to the New Testament.

And this is where our modern investigation becomes relevant. Today, humanity is developing technologies capable of altering biological functions, modifying genetic material, and integrating artificial systems with living bodies. These achievements are not evidence that the Watchers have returned. But they do raise questions about human ambition, responsibility, and whether technological power can advance faster than moral wisdom.

What concerns me is the possibility that a civilization can become so occupied with its achievements, comforts, and ordinary routines that it fails to examine the direction in which it is moving. That concern fits directly within Jesus' warning. The people of Noah's generation continued living as though tomorrow were guaranteed, until judgment arrived.

So perhaps the question is not whether Jesus was secretly describing biotechnology. He wasn't explicitly doing that. The question is whether His warning about Noah calls us to examine our own generation with the same seriousness. Because whatever else the days of Noah may signify, Jesus made one thing unmistakably clear: humanity must remain awake, discerning, and prepared for His return.

Investigation 9 — Is the Ancient Pattern Appearing in a Modern Form?

Now we arrive at the question that connects everything we have investigated tonight. We have examined scientists designing biological functions, governments investing in synthetic biology, and technologies capable of altering human physiology. We have also examined Genesis 6, the Watchers in 1 Enoch, Daniel's iron and clay, and the warning Jesus gave concerning the days of Noah. But before we bring these subjects together, we must ask something important. Are we discovering a genuine recurring pattern, or are we simply placing modern events alongside ancient Scripture because they appear to resemble one another?

Let's begin with what the ancient accounts actually describe. Genesis 6 presents the sons of God taking the daughters of men, followed by the appearance of the Nephilim and the corruption of the world. First Enoch expands that account, describing heavenly beings who abandoned their appointed boundaries, produced offspring with human women, and transmitted knowledge that contributed to violence and destruction. The central issue was not simply that knowledge increased. It was that knowledge, power, and transgression became intertwined, with consequences extending throughout human civilization.

Now look at our generation. Scientists can edit genetic material, engineer cellular systems, design proteins through artificial intelligence, and connect electronic devices directly to the human nervous system. These are documented technological developments. Some are already used in medicine, while others remain experimental. They do not demonstrate supernatural intervention, nor do they establish that modern researchers are repeating the specific acts attributed to the Watchers. But they do show that humanity is gaining unprecedented practical control over biological processes.

Here is where I see a possible parallel worth considering. In the Enochic account, extraordinary knowledge enters human society without corresponding righteousness, and its misuse contributes to widespread corruption. In our world, technological capabilities can advance faster than the ethical systems intended to govern them. That does not make scientific knowledge forbidden, and it certainly does not make scientists equivalent to fallen angels. The parallel concerns the relationship between power, responsibility, and boundaries, not an established identity between ancient and modern actors.

But there is another distinction we must preserve. The Watchers narrative describes heavenly beings crossing into human reproduction. Modern biotechnology is conducted by human researchers working with biological materials and engineered devices. Those are fundamentally different circumstances. Even a future technology capable of making heritable genetic changes would not, by itself, establish the return of the Watchers. Scripture does not identify an artificial enzyme, a neural implant, or a gene-editing system as the fulfillment of Genesis 6.

So what would constitute meaningful evidence of a prophetic connection? We would need more than technological similarities. We would need a defensible interpretation of the relevant passages, consistency with their historical context, and evidence that the proposed events correspond to what those passages actually predict. Without that foundation, we risk turning every scientific breakthrough into a prophetic announcement, weakening our ability to recognize what Scripture genuinely teaches.

And yet, I don't believe that means the investigation has been wasted. Quite the opposite. It has brought us to a question that remains important even if no prophetic connection can be demonstrated. Humanity is developing the power to alter living systems, including aspects of its own biology. Some applications may alleviate tremendous suffering. Others could introduce serious ethical problems, particularly when consent, inherited changes, inequality, or coercion become involved.

Perhaps the warning we should carry forward is not that every new technology fulfills an ancient prophecy. It is that increasing power does not automatically produce increasing wisdom. Genesis describes a civilization overcome by corruption. Jesus warns of people continuing ordinary life without recognizing approaching judgment.

And that brings us to our final investigation. If humanity can increasingly determine what its own biological future looks like, who has the authority to decide what it should become?

Investigation 10 — Who Decides What Humanity Is Allowed to Become?

We have arrived at the final investigation, and I want to return to the question that has followed us throughout this entire journey. Humanity is acquiring the ability to redesign biological functions, alter genetic material, and integrate technology directly with the human body. These developments are no longer confined to science fiction. Some are already being used to treat disease and restore lost abilities, while others remain experimental. But as these capabilities expand, a question emerges that science alone cannot answer. Who has the authority to decide what humanity is allowed to become?

Genesis 1:27 tells us that God created mankind in His own image. That statement establishes something extraordinary about human identity. Our value does not originate in our intelligence, physical abilities, productivity, or technological achievements. It originates in the One who created us. From a biblical perspective, humanity is not merely biological material waiting to be improved according to the preferences of whoever possesses the most advanced technology. Human beings possess dignity before anyone attempts to modify them.

But this does not mean medicine is rebellion against God. Restoring sight, treating inherited disorders, repairing damaged tissue, and helping someone regain the ability to communicate can be expressions of compassion. Jesus Himself healed the sick and restored broken bodies. The question is not whether human beings should use knowledge to relieve suffering. The question is whether there is a meaningful difference between caring for the human person and treating humanity itself as an unfinished engineering project.

Consider what happens when technological enhancement becomes commercially valuable. A corporation may develop a procedure promising improved cognitive performance. A government may consider biological modifications that could provide military advantages. Parents may eventually face decisions about altering characteristics that their children could inherit. Even if these technologies become technically possible, who determines whether their use is appropriate? Who evaluates the risks? And who protects those who cannot consent, particularly future generations?

These are not questions that should be answered exclusively by scientists, politicians, military officials, or corporate executives. Scientific expertise is essential for understanding what a technology can accomplish and what risks it presents. But questions about dignity, justice, coercion, and the meaning of human life belong to society as a whole. They require public accountability, informed consent, ethical reasoning, and, for believers, serious examination of Scripture.

Now return to the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11. Humanity gathers around a common ambition, determined to build a city and tower reaching toward heaven and to make a name for itself. The passage does not condemn architecture or technological skill. It exposes a deeper problem involving collective pride and human ambition. The builders believed their unified undertaking could secure the future they desired. Yet their plans remained subject to God's authority.

That brings us back to Noah. Genesis 6 describes a civilization corrupted by wickedness and violence. First Enoch portrays the Watchers crossing forbidden boundaries and introducing knowledge that contributes to destruction. Daniel describes kingdoms that cannot establish lasting unity through their own strength. Jesus warns that ordinary life can continue even as judgment approaches. These passages do not explicitly predict modern biotechnology, but together they challenge the assumption that increasing human power necessarily produces wisdom.

And perhaps that is where our responsibility begins. We cannot stop every scientific discovery, nor should we condemn every technology capable of healing suffering. But neither should we surrender moral judgment simply because a discovery promises progress.

The question is not whether humanity will continue acquiring extraordinary abilities. It almost certainly will. The question is whether we will exercise those abilities with humility, restraint, and reverence for the life God has given us.

Because the greatest danger may not be that humanity learns how to redesign itself. It may be that humanity becomes convinced it no longer needs to answer to its Creator.

Conclusion — The Question Was Never Just About an Enzyme

Tonight, we began with something that seemed almost insignificant in the larger picture of human history. Scientists were using artificial intelligence to design enzymes capable of performing chemical reactions that nature does not ordinarily perform. On the surface, this was another scientific development, another step toward improving manufacturing, medicine, and environmental treatment. But as we followed the research, something much larger began to emerge. Humanity is no longer satisfied with discovering how biological systems function. We are increasingly developing the ability to redesign those functions according to our own intentions.

And I want to make something clear before we finish. I am not declaring that an artificial enzyme fulfills biblical prophecy. I am not claiming that scientists are secretly recreating the Nephilim, or that every medical implant represents rebellion against God. We have not established those things, and I refuse to manufacture evidence to make a compelling story. What we have established is that biotechnology, artificial intelligence, and human-machine interfaces are advancing in ways that raise profound questions about human identity, responsibility, and the boundaries of technological power.

But then we opened Scripture. We returned to Genesis 6, where the sons of God took the daughters of men, where the Nephilim appeared, and where God observed a world consumed by wickedness and violence. We examined 1 Enoch, where the Watchers crossed forbidden boundaries and introduced knowledge that contributed to humanity's corruption. We examined Daniel's vision of iron mixed with clay, and we acknowledged that its immediate context concerns earthly kingdoms, even while considering the broader questions raised by its language about mingling with the seed of men.

And finally, we returned to the words of Jesus. “But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” Jesus specifically warned that people would continue eating, drinking, and marrying until judgment arrived. Luke also records His comparison with the days of Lot. His warning was unmistakable: a civilization can continue its ordinary routines without recognizing the seriousness of its spiritual condition.

But I keep returning to one question. Why Noah? Why direct our attention to that particular generation? We cannot prove that Jesus was predicting genetic engineering or artificial intelligence. Yet His reference takes us back to a world Scripture describes as profoundly corrupted, and it invites us to consider whether our own generation is confusing increasing knowledge with increasing wisdom.

Because there is a difference between healing a broken body and deciding that humanity itself needs to be fundamentally redefined. There is a difference between using knowledge to serve our neighbors and using power without considering whom it may harm. And there is a difference between exercising the abilities God has given us and imagining that those abilities make us accountable to no one.

I believe Christians should be capable of recognizing the benefits of scientific discovery while asking difficult questions about its direction. We do not need to fear every laboratory or condemn every researcher. But we should never abandon discernment simply because something is called progress.

The central issue tonight was never whether humanity could design a better enzyme. It was whether humanity, having acquired the power to alter life, would remember the value of the life it was altering.

And perhaps the greatest warning from Noah's generation is not that humanity possessed too much knowledge, but that its heart had become corrupted while life continued around it.

So I leave you with this question. If tomorrow humanity discovers how to redesign nearly everything about itself, will it also have discovered how to love God and love its neighbor? Because no machine, no engineered protein, and no scientific achievement can answer that question for us. And until next time, remember: we don't chase symptoms. We test the cause against Scripture.

Bibliography

• Bostrom, Nick. “A History of Transhumanist Thought.” Journal of Evolution and Technology 14, no. 1 (2005): 1–25.
• Charles, R. H., trans. The Book of Enoch. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912.
• Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 1, Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983.
• Collins, John J. Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.
• Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. “Living Foundries.” Biological Technologies Office. Arlington, VA: DARPA. https://www.darpa.mil/.
• The Holy Bible: King James Version. 1611.
• Jumper, John, et al. “Highly Accurate Protein Structure Prediction with AlphaFold.” Nature 596 (2021): 583–89. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2.
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Biodefense in the Age of Synthetic Biology. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2018. https://doi.org/10.17226/24890.
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Heritable Human Genome Editing. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2020. https://doi.org/10.17226/25665.
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Human Genome Editing: Science, Ethics, and Governance.Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2017. https://doi.org/10.17226/24623.
• National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology. Charting the Future of Biotechnology. Washington, DC: National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology, 2025.
• Nickelsburg, George W. E. 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001.
• Nickelsburg, George W. E., and James C. VanderKam. 1 Enoch: A New Translation. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012.
• North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATO Science & Technology Trends 2023–2043. Brussels: NATO Science & Technology Organization, 2023.
• President’s Council on Bioethics. Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness. Washington, DC: President’s Council on Bioethics, 2003.
• Sandel, Michael J. The Case against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007.
• VanderKam, James C. Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1984.
• Watson, Joseph L., et al. “De Novo Design of Protein Structure and Function with RFdiffusion.” Nature 620 (2023): 1089–1100. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06415-8.
• World Health Organization. Human Genome Editing: A Framework for Governance. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2021.
• World Health Organization. Human Genome Editing: Recommendations. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2021.

Endnotes

1. The Holy Bible: King James Version (1611), Matthew 24:36–44. Jesus compares the coming of the Son of Man to the days of Noah, emphasizing ordinary human activity, unexpected judgment, and the necessity of watchfulness.

2. The Holy Bible: King James Version, Genesis 6:1–13. The passage describes the sons of God, the daughters of men, the Nephilim, widespread wickedness, violence, and the corruption of the earth before the Flood.

3. R. H. Charles, trans., The Book of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912), 6–11. These chapters describe the descent of the Watchers, their relationships with human women, the birth of giants, the transmission of knowledge, and divine judgment.

4. James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1, Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments(Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983). This collection provides important historical context for ancient Jewish apocalyptic traditions, including the Watchers narrative.

5. Joseph L. Jumper et al., “Highly Accurate Protein Structure Prediction with AlphaFold,” Nature 596 (2021): 583–89, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2. This research demonstrates major advances in computational protein structure prediction, an important foundation for AI-assisted protein engineering.

6. Joseph L. Watson et al., “De Novo Design of Protein Structure and Function with RFdiffusion,” Nature 620 (2023): 1089–1100, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06415-8. The study demonstrates computational approaches to designing protein structures and functions, distinct from the specific enzyme experiments discussed in the opening investigation.

7. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, “Living Foundries,” Biological Technologies Office, https://www.darpa.mil/. DARPA's Living Foundries initiative illustrates the military research community's interest in making biological engineering more predictable, scalable, and useful for producing specialized materials and compounds.

8. National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology, Charting the Future of Biotechnology (Washington, DC: National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology, 2025). The report examines biotechnology's strategic significance, including national security, economic competition, and the development of American capabilities.

9. North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO Science & Technology Trends 2023–2043 (Brussels: NATO Science & Technology Organization, 2023). The report examines emerging technologies, including biotechnology, and their potential implications for future defense and security.

10. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Human Genome Editing: Science, Ethics, and Governance (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2017), https://doi.org/10.17226/24623. The report distinguishes potential therapeutic applications of genome editing from ethical and governance concerns involving human genetic modification.

11. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Heritable Human Genome Editing (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2020), https://doi.org/10.17226/25665. This report addresses scientific, medical, and ethical considerations surrounding genetic changes that could be inherited by future generations.

12. Nick Bostrom, “A History of Transhumanist Thought,” Journal of Evolution and Technology 14, no. 1 (2005): 1–25. Bostrom examines the intellectual development of transhumanism and its ambition to use technology to overcome biological limitations.

13. Michael J. Sandel, The Case against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007). Sandel examines the ethical distinction between healing human beings and attempting to enhance or redesign their characteristics.

14. World Health Organization, Human Genome Editing: A Framework for Governance (Geneva: World Health Organization, 2021). The framework addresses responsible oversight, transparency, international cooperation, and governance challenges associated with human genome editing.

15. World Health Organization, Human Genome Editing: Recommendations (Geneva: World Health Organization, 2021). The recommendations emphasize accountability, public engagement, and responsible scientific and clinical practices.

16. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Biodefense in the Age of Synthetic Biology(Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2018), https://doi.org/10.17226/24890. The report examines how advances in synthetic biology create both beneficial capabilities and potential biological security concerns.

17. The Holy Bible: King James Version, 1 Corinthians 10:23. Paul's distinction between what is lawful and what is beneficial provides a theological principle for considering whether technological capability alone justifies its use.

18. The Holy Bible: King James Version, Genesis 6:4–12. The description of the Nephilim and the corruption of all flesh provides the biblical foundation for examining the condition of the world before the Flood. The passage does not explicitly describe genetic engineering or technological alteration of organisms.

19. George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001). Nickelsburg examines the historical, literary, and theological development of the Watchers tradition.

20. James C. VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1984). VanderKam explores the development and influence of Enochic traditions within ancient Judaism.

21. The Holy Bible: King James Version, Jude 6–7. Jude describes angels who abandoned their proper habitation and subsequently discusses Sodom and Gomorrah, passages frequently examined alongside the Watchers tradition.

22. The Holy Bible: King James Version, 2 Peter 2:4–6. Peter discusses the judgment of sinning angels, the preservation of Noah, the destruction of the ancient world, and the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah.

23. The Holy Bible: King James Version, Daniel 2:31–45. Daniel interprets Nebuchadnezzar's dream of successive kingdoms, including the divided kingdom represented by iron mixed with clay and the statement concerning mingling with the seed of men.

24. John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993). Collins provides historical and literary analysis of Daniel's visions, including the political interpretation of the divided kingdom and its attempted alliances.

25. The Holy Bible: King James Version, Luke 17:26–30. Jesus compares the days preceding the revelation of the Son of Man to the days of Noah and Lot, emphasizing the continuation of ordinary life until sudden judgment.

26. George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: A New Translation (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012). This translation provides an additional textual witness for examining the Watchers narrative and its relationship to ancient Jewish understandings of Genesis 6.

27. The Holy Bible: King James Version, Genesis 11:1–9. The Tower of Babel narrative describes humanity's collective ambition to establish its own greatness and the divine intervention that disrupts its undertaking.

28. President's Council on Bioethics, Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness (Washington, DC: President's Council on Bioethics, 2003). The report examines the moral and social implications of using biotechnology to pursue human enhancement beyond the treatment of disease.

29. The Holy Bible: King James Version, Genesis 1:26–28. The creation of humanity in the image of God provides the theological foundation for the episode's discussion of human dignity, identity, and responsibility.

30. The Holy Bible: King James Version, Matthew 24:37–44. The concluding warning returns to Jesus' comparison with Noah, distinguishing His explicit teaching about preparedness and unexpected judgment from speculative applications involving modern biotechnology.

#AsInTheDaysOfNoah #DaysOfNoah #Genesis6 #Nephilim #Watchers #BookOfEnoch #FirstEnoch #Daniel2 #IronAndClay #BibleProphecy #EndTimes #JesusChrist #SecondComing #BiblicalTruth #Scripture #ArtificialIntelligence #AI #SyntheticBiology #Biotechnology #GeneticEngineering #GeneEditing #HumanEnhancement #Transhumanism #HumanMachineIntegration #DARPA #MilitaryBiotechnology #Bioethics #ImageOfGod #Christianity #SpiritualDiscernment #CauseBeforeSymptom #JamesCarner

AsInTheDaysOfNoah DaysOfNoah Genesis6 Nephilim Watchers BookOfEnoch FirstEnoch Daniel2 IronAndClay BibleProphecy EndTimes JesusChrist SecondComing BiblicalTruth Scripture ArtificialIntelligence AI SyntheticBiology Biotechnology GeneticEngineering GeneEditing HumanEnhancement Transhumanism HumanMachineIntegration DARPA MilitaryBiotechnology Bioethics ImageOfGod Christianity SpiritualDiscernment CauseBeforeSymptom JamesCarner