Some Blogs to Visit for Evolution Information


The other day, my friend Jeff listed a whole host of blogs that belong to atheists that he has either found helpful or visited or simply found. I probably won’t list as many as Jeff because it’s late and I am tired, but I’ll add to them as I go along, and also add them to my blogroll. (Please don’t think the small number indicates a lack of sites available, I’m just not as ambitious as Jeff 🙂 .)

Here are some Creation blogs (or ID) that you might enjoy:

Post-Darwinist (Denyse O’Leary)

Uncommon Descent (William Dembski)

ID Update 

Overwhelming Evidence

Mindful Hack

Intelligent Design or Evolution Blog (I didn’t really know where to put this one; I think it’s ID)

[Now, I grant you that most of these are not strictly creation blogs. In fact, they are ID blogs (Intelligent Design). I believe in Genesis 1 and these blogs may or may not (mostly not) hold to a literal interpretation of that chapter of the Bible.]

Oh, I keep being told that evolution and atheism are only coincidentally linked. Here’s proof of that Evolution Space. Note the big A and the contrasting title: Evolution space. Right. But they have nothing to do with one another.

At William Dembski’s blog, you can link to a series of essays that will help explain how Darwinists think. See this Essay: Book Review: Science’s Blind Spot: Making Sense of Darwin’s Devout. I haven’t had time to read it all yet. Still, for what it’s worth, maybe you’ll find something to help.

Alright, that’s all for tonight. I have to write a little more on my Sunday sermon. I hope you are blessed.

Soli Deo Gloria!



  1. The Truth of Genesis:

    Humanist supporters often claim that there is “overwhelming evidence”
    for the theory of evolution. That is non-sense. There is solid geologic
    evidence for escalating death of life forms on Earth since 700 Million
    BC, but that is no “evidence” for evolution. The question is “why were
    there periods of extinctions and restorations of life forms on Earth in
    the ancient past, at least six times?”.

    There are “young Earth” believers, that refuse to face the reality of a
    multi-billion year old Earth. So much so that they will redefine the
    “first day” of Moses in order to make it fit their false doctrine of a
    10,000 year old universe. Being hypocrites, they will claim to use
    “plain literal interpretation” of scripture, until you ask them “where
    did the water come from on the first day in Genesis?”. They can’t
    answer without adding acts of God (to the scripture) that the
    scriptures plainly do not describe. If God made the water “before
    the first day”, then it took Him longer than one week to create the
    universe. When you “corner them” with scripture, they run away.

    The “Day/Age” believers actually call God a liar, saying that He
    did not create the Earth & universe in six literal days (Exodus 20:11).
    The Theistic Evolutionists, and the Ruin & Restorationists use the
    ‘excuse’ that there was only a “parting away of clouds” on the Fourth
    Day, which is clearly a misrepresentation of God’s Word. They all
    deny the truth of scripture, saying that each day in Genesis chapter
    one were long periods of time.

    All of the above groups live in a delusion, not willing to accept, nor
    try to find, the truth. They only look in their own little corner, and try
    to proclaim a universal truth, without examining all available evidence.

    After all is said and done, by both believers and non-believers, the
    book “Moses Didn’t Write About Creation!”, is the only book ever
    written that is congruent with the “first day” of Moses (24 hrs), the
    “Fourth Day” of Moses (24 hrs), and the geologic record of prehistoric
    Earth, reconciling Genesis with the 600+ million year fossil record. It
    promotes the doctrine of “Biblical Reality”, and correctly represents
    the Genesis text. ISBN-10: 1424182204

    Herman Cummings
    PO Box 1745
    Fortson GA, 31808

  2. Herman,

    Thanks for stopping by, but the only view that matters at my blog is mine. I support a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. So, I guess I’m one of those living in delusion. I don’t think Genesis needs to be reconciled. And I don’t think you will find sympathy for your view from either Creationists or Darwinists. But, thanks for stopping by.


  3. Hi Jerry.

    Those that claim to hold to a “literal explanation” of Genesis (except myself), have
    so far proven to be hypocrites. Since they all have been followers of Henry Morris,
    believing in the false “young Earth” doctrine, perhaps you are different. I hold
    to the “correct literal interpretation” of Genesis, where the before mentioned hypocrites
    run for cover when asked “where did the water come from” on the first day, and
    “were the birds created on the fifth day or the sixth day?”. Each and EVERY one
    of them tries to “redefine” the scriptures, in order to justify their beliefs.
    They soon break off the dialogue because their doctrine does not “fit” the scriptures.

    If you want, write me at, and lets see if you too are a hypocrite,
    or will accept the truth of Genesis. May I susgest that you read the book “Moses Didn’t
    Write About Creation!” (ISBN: 1424182204).

  4. Mr Cummings,

    Again, thanks for stopping by. I appreciate your point of view, but as I stated, I don’t think Genesis needs to be ‘reconciled’. I’m not a ‘follower’ of Henry Morris. I’m a follower of Jesus. He accepted a literal understanding of Genesis and I accept his interpretation.

    Sadly, I don’t have time to engage in any lengthy debates over these issues. I accept Scripture at face value and I understand that the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed as much as the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed.

    I do appreciate your visit. Just for the record, I’m not someone who buys into (all) the Intelligent Design philosophies. They are too vague for me and they are not necessarily a Christian view of Scripture. They may explain phenomenon, but they do not explain Scripture. I am interested in Scripture and ID doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with Scripture. I put links to their blogs and websites because those who espouse ID are at least helpful in destroying the arguments of the Darwinists.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: