How Darwin’s tree of life might help you overcome God’s tree of life

Charles Darwin drew a diagram of a ‘tree’ in his book, On the Origin of Species (1859).
Darwin's tree of lifeIt famously illustrates the process of evolution. A tree grows from seed. So the seed of Darwin’s tree was the first living organism. From it all the other life forms like microbes, plants, fish, birds, mammals, et cetera, evolved.


The Bible first mentions the Tree of Life in Genesis 3:22. The Lord said, ‘The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live for ever.…’  We next read about the Tree of Life in the last chapter of Revelation. On each side of the river stood the tree of life…. in the New Jerusalem.1 


Darwin did not discuss the beginning of life (the seed of the tree) in his book. Later he speculated that life could have begun in some warm little pond.How do evolutionists today explain the beginning of life?


One way is the famous Miller-Urey experiment of 1953. Stanley Miller did the experiment to prove that life evolved from dead elements. It produced a few chemical substances, but there is a chasm wider than the Grand Canyon between dead and living atoms or elements. To take a few elements and believe that a living organism will pop out of it, is a fairy tale. Yet this experiment is still included in almost all biology textbooks.3


In the same year, 1953, Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA (the carrier of genetic information). It revolutionised the understanding of living organisms: no life can exist without the genetic ‘instruction manual.’  A few substances heated in a test tube, like the Miller Urey experiment, cannot produce life (this is where science becomes the enemy of evolution).


DNA resides in the very small nucleus of each living cell. It is like a written code, with a decoder included. Human experience tells us that a code, like computer language, does not evolve by itself. It needs someone to design and write it. Even if we accept the fallacious idea that we evolved from some common ancestor around 6 million years ago, there is no evidence that the very complicated DNA code can evolve.


What does this mean for evolution? Where did the seed for Darwin’s tree of life come from and who wrote its ‘instructions?’ Scientists are hard at work to find a solution. The search is on, the problem of first life must be solved, but they won’t concede that life comes from God. Anything goes, except the Creator.


People started looking up. Not to the Creator, but to the stars. They realised: the answer is in the planets.5  Many people look to the stars for guidance, so why can’t the planets guide us to the solution of first life? The problem has not yet been solved, but fear not, the planets will have the answer.  In the meantime, just believe that evolution is true. After all, logical, reasonable people have no problem to believe, by faith, that Darwin was right.


Question:  Evolutionists believe only in matter. DNA is is not matter, but information, so it is non-material.6  What are the chances that Darwin’s tree of life will help you overcome God’s tree of life? 


  1. Revelation 22:2
  2. Charles Darwin in a letter in 1871, by Francis Darwin, cited by R Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth, Bantam Press, 2009, p 417.
  3. J B Reece et al, Global Edition, Campbell Biology, Ninth Edition, Pearson, 2011, p 105, 554-556.
  4. V Blackmore & A Page, Evolution The Great Debate, A Lion Book, 1989, p 141-144.
  5. H Crick, LE Orgel, Directed Panspermia, Icarus 19:341-346, 1973, cited by M Denton, Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, Adler & Adler, 1985, p 271.
  6. W Gitt, In The Beginning was Information, Christliche Literatur-Verbreitung e. V., 1997, p 47: ‘It should now be clear that information, being a fundamental entity, cannot be a property of matter, and its origin cannot be explained in terms of material processes.’


What everybody ought to know about operational and historical science

Operational vs historical science copyBill Nye debated Ken Ham on the topic, Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era? at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, on February 4, 2014. Ham explained the difference between operational science and historical (forensic) science in some detail. Operational science has to do with investigations into nature in the present (repeated experiments require the present). Historical science investigates the past, trying to understand the origin of life, complexity in nature, humans, et cetera.  Bill Nye denied the distinction. He referred to a TV program where historical investigations and operational science are treated as the same.

For people who are eager to find evidence that will ‘delete’ Genesis 1, that might suffice. But reasonable, logical thinking people should ask themselves the following questions:

  • How many Nobel prizes have been given for evolutionary discoveries?
  • How many laws of nature are based on evolutionary principles?
  • Why is it that only operational science leads to technological applications?
  • Did Darwin really give conclusive evidence in his book, On the Origin of Species, that evolution (common descent) is true?

The answers are mostly negative, because evolution has no practical value.   It is because evolution has a different purpose than science. Science wants to understand how nature works, and how to apply it in technology for the benefit of society. Evolution desperately wants to prove that there is no Creator God, which means there is no life after death and nothing to worry about.

Why is it so important to prove that evolution is true? Why is it so important that even the crucial distinction between operational science and historical investigations is denied? The reason is that once people understand the difference, they understand there is no testable, observable evidence that evolution is true. That will be catastrophic for atheism. They need evolution to be true. It is very important in their atheism campaign.

That is why we so often hear that religion is at war with science. It doesn’t mean operational science. One has to be fairly deluded to think that any person (Bible believers included) can oppose the established laws of gravity, or that proteins consist of amino acids. Laws of nature have been established by repeated experiments.

Evolution is a different scenario. When Bible believers take a closer look at the ‘science’ of evolution, they find its evidence wanting. They question it. So the dreaded creationists and ID people must be silenced. Laws are used to prevent any criticism of evolution in schools.  No one dares to criticise Darwinism (evolutionism).  Evolutionism refers to faith in Darwin without objective proof: you must believe by faith in Darwin alone.  NB! By evolution we logically exclude variations among kinds, like finches with different beaks.

Logic tells us that laws have never been necessary to protect real science from criticism. Testable, observable, repeatable experiments proved the laws of nature (they stand until they are falsified). So why did Bill Nye insist there is no difference between historical (forensic) science and operational science? Because he is not a science guy, but an evolution guy. He defends atheism. Operational science is not the same as historical investigations into events of the past (forensic science).  Reasonable, logical people understand that very well.

Do yourself a favour. Keep your eyes and ears open for the false claim that there is a war between  religion and science.  There isn’t. It is a war between filling heaven and filling hell.

Did Caesar Augustus live?

Caesar Augustus lived from 63 BC – 14 AD. He was the head of the Roman empire (27 BC – 14 AD). C Augustus, credit Bibi Saint-Pol: Wikimedia C 2He was an excellent emperor and his times were known as the Pax Romana (the Roman peace). Yet nobody living today, or anybody since about 100 AD, has seen him. So, how do we know he lived?


There are sculptures of him, as well as buildings he erected. Historians like Nicholas of Damascus, Dio Cassius, Plutarch, Tacitus, Cicero and others, wrote about him.Some of his own writings also survived. So we have a fairly accurate history of his life. We are also familiar with Rome, Italy, and the conquests of the Romans in various countries. Thus, even if nobody now living has seen him, there is little doubt that he existed.


He even had his share of critics. Some were his contemporaries, but most wrote long after his death, like Jonathan Swift (1667-1745), Thomas Gordon (1658-1741), and Thomas Blackwell (1701-1757). Although they never met him personally, they criticised him based on historical documents.


Caesar Augustus is mentioned in the Bible. He issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world.2 He was also a patron of Herod the Great and made him king of the Jews. That is why Herod was so disturbed when he heard a king of the Jews had been born. So he decided to kill him.3


A few of the other Roman emperors are also mentioned in the Bible: Augustus’ son, Tiberius Caesar (14-37AD),Claudius, the fourth emperor (excluding Julius Caesar),5  Nero (54-68).6  The apostle Paul, charged by the Jews, appealed to the court of Caesar (Nero), expecting a fair trial.7


No historian, or anyone else denies the existence of the Caesars. One of the books that discuss the Caesars is is that of I Lissner. 8 However, when it comes to Jesus, people deny that He existed. It is true that there are no busts or statues of Him, but there are many reliable historical documents that testify that He lived. The difference is that Jesus was more than a historical person. He was God, therefore He has to do with life after death. So to acknowledge the possible existence of Jesus is too dangerous for skeptics. They claim to be reasonable people, so they have to ‘delete dangerous history.’


For example, well known atheists like P Boghossian,9 Guy P Harrison,10 and Richard Dawkins,11 ignore reliable documents that testify that the Bible is true history. It seems as if they are history deniers.


Question: if you accept that Caesar Augustus was a real historical figure and not just a myth, what is the difference between the eyewitness accounts about Augustus and those about Jesus?



  1. Wikipedia and the Catholic Encyclopaedia
  2. Luke 2:1
  3. Matthew 2:1-8, 13-18
  4. Luke 3:1
  5. Acts 11:28; 18:1
  6. Acts 25:8
  7. Acts 25:11
  8. I Lissner, Power and Folly, the Story of the Caesars, translated by J M Brownjohn, Jonathan Cape 30, Bedford Square, 1958
  9. P Boghossian, A Manual for Creating Atheists, Pitchstone Publishing, 2013
  10. Guy P Harrison, 50 Simple Questions to Ask A Christian, Prometheus Books, 2013. Kindle Edition
  11. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Bantam Press, 2006