Branch or Vine? Evolution and Scripture.


flight landscape nature sky
Photo by Pixabay on

We have previously discussed the scientifically discredited evolutionary “Tree of life”. It appeared for nearly a hundred years in texts as an illustration of how evolution progressed from one species to another. It suggests that humanity evolved from apes, which evolved from other lower life forms, and eventually from some single celled organism such as a bacteria or slime mold. It suggests mankind is just one of the many thousands of branches on the random tree of evolution. Here are just a couple of the hundreds of variations.



Image result for image of the evolutionary tree

Branching diagram that appeared in Charles Darwin's _On the origin of species_, illustrating the idea that new species form from pre-existing species in a branching process that occurs over extended periods of time.

We showed that this imaginary “tree of life” has been totally discredited by scientific (not religious) means, such as archaeology, geology, paleontology and genomics. Proponents of evolution have tried to “improve” and “re-engineer”  the diagram hundreds of times, but to no avail.  It is finally being discarded by many who study evolution, yet it still appears in many recently published secular texts.  You see, even pro-evolutionary institutions like Berkeley admit that NS does NOT explain the origin of life, that evolution is NOT random, that evolution can (and supposedly did) occur RAPIDLY, and that evolution cannot explain morality.(1) Yet all these ideas would have been considered anathema to Darwin. Most are the antithesis of evolution.

Evolutionary biologist Eric Bapteste recently admitted that the project to build the tree of life is pretty hopeless, saying “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality“. (2) Or as stated by Michael Rose of UCM Irvine,  “The tree of life is being politely buried… What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.”(3)

As written by Dr David Raup, Dean of Science at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.(4) (Bold type added) When he states it is “jerky” that means animals suddenly appear fully formed in the geological strata… that sounds far more compatible with creation than with evolution!

To further explain I will quote evolutionist Richard Goldschmidt, who wrote: “The major evolutionary advances must have taken place in single large steps…The many missing links in the paleontological record are sought for in vain because they have never existed: ‘the first bird hatched from a reptilian egg.’”(5)

We have not yet examined the alternative view point, mentioned in scripture in which we (humanity) are viewed as branches of the one true vine.  John Chapter 15 verse 5 reads ““I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.” (6)

nature countryside grapes vineyard
Photo by mali maeder on

I have no intent to pursue this as analogy thoroughly here, except to say that how we view our origins has a great deal to do with how we view ourselves. Science, that is to say, true and intellectually honest science, is not incompatible with faith, or with the Bible. But the intellectually dishonest, secular atheistic, brainwashed view of science (more accurately called scientism) taught in our educational institutions now is an entirely different matter.

The “vine and branches” verse is traditionally viewed as referring to Christian Churches, ministers, and believers, who derive their life source and meaning from their connection to a living Christ.  However the verse is also applicable to the study of the sciences. I have stated before that the truest definition of Scientific study, is as follows; “Real science, unpretentious and unassuming is this, to investigate the wonders of Creation with all the powers of our God given intellectual capacity, and to maintain truth and objectivity at all costs.”

Certainly that definition is at odds as with current secular atheistic presuppositions, but we have proven many times over that the goal of secular atheism and scientism is NOT maintaining truth and objectivity.  It is focused rather on indoctrinating gullible youth into their atheistic, anti-God, Anti-Christ mindset.(7)

Many of the authors and originators of Scientific study (Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Linnaeus, and hundreds more) were Christians, and for hundreds of years we have seen our standard of living, and our standards of education moving forward at a steady pace.  But more recently scientific advancements have no longer been leading to increases in individual freedom, or an improved standard of living for society as a whole.   We have instead seen burgeoning technological advancements that have created an unbelievably wealthy class of billionaires while doing little to advance the condition of the billions trapped in poverty. And worse yet we have seen a dark curtain of spiritual and intellectual dishonesty descend on our campuses, our media, and our entertainment industry. I think it is fair to say that the current trends in science are not leading to the betterment of society and mankind nearly as much as they once did.

Perhaps, you say, that is a sociological or political question, not a scientific one. And certainly in one sense that is true.  But each is connected and intertwined with the other. The sociological phenomenon of secular atheism, for example, which is overtaking our campuses is highly dependent on the belief in and promotion of evolution.  So perhaps, just perhaps, Real Science, practiced in the setting of belief in a loving Creator, offers more hope and solutions than the pseudo-science of the secular atheists. Perhaps by reconnecting with “The Vine” also called “the way , and the truth and the life“(8), even science, cosmology, and our understanding of life itself will be greatly enhanced.

As written by Sarah Irving-Stonebraker of Western Sydney University, a convert from atheism, “Christianity was also, to my surprise, radical – far more radical than the leftist ideologies with which I had previously been enamored. The love of God was unlike anything which I expected, or of which I could make sense.”(9)




(4) (1)

(5) Goldschmitdt, R. B. (1940). The Material Basis of Evolution, New Haven CT: Yale Univ.Press. ISBN 0-300-02823-7

(6) John 15:5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.” 

(7) John 4:1-3 “By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh… and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.”  

(8) John 14:6



Real science, unpretentious and unassuming is this, to investigate the wonders of Creation with all the powers of our God given intellectual capacity, and to maintain truth and objectivity at all costs.” ANM


Against The Odds… How Evolutionists Create Something from Nothing

black and grey casio scientific calculator showing formula
Photo by Pixabay on

“The entire complex of New York City is less complicated than the makeup of the simplest microscopic cell.”

Against all odds, Julian Huxley the renowned British evolutionary biologist, eugenicist, and proponent of natural selection believed that although the chance was statistically zero for evolution to produce a horse, it happened.

“To sum up, natural selection converts randomness into direction and blind chance into apparent purpose. It operates with the aid of time to produce improvements in the machinery of living, and in the process generates results of a more than astronomical improbability which could have been achieved in no other way” (Sir Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, pp. 54, 55).(1)

Still today, all those who believe in evolution follow in his footsteps, doing so not because of the evidence, but in spite of it!

As stated by Joe Crews, “What would be involved in the accidental development of a single living cell? The fact is that the most elementary form of life is more complicated than any man-made thing on earth. The entire complex of New York City is less complicated than the makeup of the simplest microscopic cell. It is more than ridiculous to talk about its chance production. Scientists themselves assure us that the structure of a single cell is unbelievably intricate. The chance for a proper combination of molecules into amino acids, and then into proteins with the properties of life is entirely unrealistic. American Scientist magazine made this admission in January of 1955: (2)

“From the probability standpoint, the ordering of the present environment into a single amino acid molecule would be utterly improbable in all the time and space available for the origin of terrestrial life. “(3)

Of course, all the early evolutionists knew of this ridiculous improbability, but they expected to find evidence in the geological strata that supported their position.  They fully expected (or at least sincerely hoped) that in just a few more years, archaeologists would find transitional fossils and intermediary species, and mountains of evidence for their theory.  But the exact opposite has happened!  The study of archaeology has proven that life on Earth appeared suddenly, in its full array of complexity, not gradually over many eons.  (See prior post “The Data in the Strata.“) Consider the following written by Joe Crews in an article “How Evolution Flunked the Science Test.”

Now here is the perplexity for the evolutionists: The Cambrian is the last stratum of the descending levels that has any fossils in it. All the lower strata below the Cambrian have absolutely no fossil record of life other than some single-celled types such as bacteria and algae. Why not? The Cambrian layer is full of all the major kinds of animals found today except the vertebrates. In other words, there is nothing primitive about the structure of these most ancient fossils known to man. Essentially, they compare with the complexity of current living creatures. But the big question is: Where are their ancestors? Where are all the evolving creatures that should have led up to these highly developed fossils? According to the theory of evolution, the Precambrian strata should be filled with more primitive forms of these Cambrian fossils in the process of evolving upward.(4) (

This is, of course, just one of the myriad reasons that evolution is impossible. (There are thousands.)  See my prior blogs for scores of examples. Yet secular atheists cling to evolution like it is the last life boat on the Titanic.

Fred Hoyle, the brilliant British astronomer who formulated the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis, made some brash statements may have cost him the Nobel prize when he stated that everyone in the scientific community relies on someone else to reassure them that evolution was indeed possible(5). The professor points out that biologists have assured astronomers and they, in turn, have been assured by “others” that it could happen.”The ‘others’ are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles,” says Hoyle. “They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology) . . . The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.”(6)

Fred Hoyle also wrote: “Life cannot have had a random beginning … The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 1040,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.” (Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981)(7)

For many decades those who believe in a divine Creation have been labeled “science-deniers”, when in reality the opposite is true.  So, realizing that it may cost me my Nobel Prize as it did Fred Hoyle,

person holding round smiling emoji board photo
Photo by on

let me further amplify the statements by the brilliant and honest Mr Hoyle, and state that all those who belief in evolution do so for reasons completely outside the realm of science.

For a more extensive, yet wonderfully coherent and readable presentation of the above, please see

(1) Sir Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, pp. 54, 55)


(3) Reproduction and the Origin of Life American Scientist Magazine, January 1955, p. 125.




(7) Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981)

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.