Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Creationist refutes Darwin’s evolutionary theory at presentation

Published: Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Updated: Wednesday, November 4, 2009 01:11

Darwin

Dr. Robert Carter, a speaker and research scientist for Creation Ministries International, gives his final lecture enititled ‘What Darwin Didn’t Know” in the Mountainlair Ballroom Tuesday evening.

According to a presentation held Tuesday at West Virginia University, evolutionist Charles Darwin did not know geology, biology, or Jesus.

Dr. Robert Carter, has a doctorate in marine biology and is currently the head speaker and scientist for Creation Ministries International (USA) in Atlanta, Ga., gave a presentation listing in detail what Darwin did not know at that time. Carter argued evolution theory, therefore, cannot be held as the true explanation of the history of the natural world.

Among those present were pastors from local churches, professors, students, Morgantown residents and families. Members from several missionary groups at WVU came as well.

"It is really comforting to know that there are people like him who talk about all these views that are held by people who are not ignorant and smart," said Evan Falkenstine, a senior business major.

Dr. Carter, in his freshman year of college, was exposed to creationism for the first time and soon after adopted it as his modus operandi. He says he felt a tremendous joy when he realized that his science and his religion were no longer at odds.

"I see evolution as the primary stumbling block for people accepting the Gospel," Carter said, noting that this is one of his main goals when speaking on creationism in public.

He also feels morally obligated to research and spread awareness about what creationism supporters believe.

"People who are not Christian are in a very bad state after they die, and I don't want to see them in that state," he said.

Junius Lewis, pastor of the Greater Love Outreach Family Church, said he was very happy WVU allowed this event to take place and that Carter used very good scientific citations to support his theory.

Carter held several other sessions Tuesday. Lectures covered the credibility of creationism, the valid role genetics plays in the bible and a film on Darwin's voyage was shown.

Not all in attendance agreed with Carter. Some thought that his argument was one-sided, criticizing Darwin without providing an alternative to the problems in evolution theory.

"He talked about how Darwin was not a Christian, and I feel for creationism to be true, one should be able to come to the conclusion without having to be religious about it," said Dominic Contreras, a junior political science major.

Jim Eakins, a junior physics major, pointed out during the question and answer session a percentage that was presented wrong in the lecture and was critical of Carter's scientific argument.

"I thought there was a lot of pseudo-scientific argument in the lecture, and I don't know how accurate he was in a lot of things that he referenced and cited," he said.
 

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

19 comments

Nick Brown
Mon Nov 9 2009 12:21
Check out my letter to the editor from today, "Dr. Carter argued creationism in scientific manner." I pointed out what I disagreed with in the DA's original review that Dave Greear didn't have room to comment on in his article. Looking forward to your hate mail, but positive comments are welcome also!
Nick Brown
Sat Nov 7 2009 21:20
Dr. Magee,

My good friend Merriam Webster defines refute as either to prove something wrong by evidence, or to deny the accuracy of it (based on evidence of course if the refutation is done honestly). Essentially, to refute something is to provide evidence that either conclusively disproves it or shows errors that discredit it. If you really think journalists have invented their own definition to the word refute, Ms. Webster has a bone to pick with you. I don't doubt that you, possessing a Ph.D., will claim that you are educated enough to know the definition of common words and that you don't care what the dictionary definition of a word is. Believe me, I didn't pull my dictionary off the shelf for your benefit, but for the benefit of those who will read your comment and think less of what Dr. Carter presented because of a journalist's word choice and your definition of it.

I agree with your take that either Dr. Carter got nowhere near proving evolution wrong, or Ms. Tandon did some shaky journalism. However, the rest of your comment blatantly attacked all Christians, as if to say that you are confirming the prior. But you did not give any opinion on the specific evidence that Dr. Carter presented. I am surprised that a doctor such as yourself would make that kind of mistake so casually.

I won't hold it against you. You probably could've written a better writeup than the DA anyway, even though it sounds that you weren't there.

Dr Mike Magee
Sat Nov 7 2009 18:33
Doubtless Tanya is practising writing as a journalist by writing pieces like this to the Daily Athenaeum, but I wonder where she wrote the heading, or whether a sub editor wrote it for her. Journalists ought to write facts when reporting, and opinion when they are writing op-ed. The headline suggests that the theory of evolution had been "refuted". The verb "to refute" properly means "to prove wrong". Did this Christian mullah prove the theory of evolution wrong? A meaning of refute which has grown latterly, but is utterly confusing and ought not to be used by journalists, is "to deny". Plainly minister Carter denies evolution, but evidently gets nowhere near proving it wrong, or Tanya, if he did, reported rather badly on the content of his talks. Unfortunately Christians are fond of using confusions of meaning in argument to fool people who are not well educated into believing what are simply myths. The confusion between the meanings of the words "proof" and "evidence" is another case. If Tanya aims to be a reporter or a journalist, she must take more care in her reporting. As for Dr Carter, he just comes from a 2000 long line of rogues.
Nick Brown
Sat Nov 7 2009 16:19
JDH (continued),

"Is there any evidence that he would accept as being contrary to his obviously deeply held beliefs?" The answer to your question is that Dr. Carter's beliefs were not deeply held (in fact barely held at all) until he realized that the majority of the evidence confirms the Bible. Then, and only then, did Christianity begin to have any deep meaning to him. That in itself is a testament.

The main focus of Dr. Carter's lectures was to take a Biblical claim, determine the implications of that claim which should be evident today, and compare them to the actual evidence that is found. If it is your contention that he did not do this in an objective way for no reason other than that he is a Christian, then it seems your bias has caused you to think that a creationist cannot possibly look at the available evidence fairly. If that describes you, then that is a level of bias beyond what I described above.

I invite everyone to check out and comment on the guest editorial about Dr. Carter's lectures and the DA's review of them on this site titled "Dr. Carter's presentation on creationism has been misrepresented."

Nick Brown
Fri Nov 6 2009 23:57
JDH,

Yes of course Dr. Carter is biased. So am I, so are you, and so is everybody. When a controversial topic is brought up, everyone has an initial idea in their head of what they think the answer is. But that doesn't mean it is impossible to still look at something objectively.

Think about pretty much EVERY modern scientist. Evolution is the school of thought, and that is what everyone learns is true when they go to college for biology, geology, genetics, and so many other fields. Young minds are indoctrinated that evolution is absolute truth, and when they enter the would to begin practicing their profession, they naturally have the inclination to find more evidence in favor of evolution in everything they look at. Like I said, it is impossible NOT to possess any sort of bias at all.

That being said, Dr. Carter announced that he grew up going to church, but when he first entered college he didn't know the first thing about Christianity because it never really meant anything to him. He did not have strong faith. Then he started learning about evolution from his biology classes, and he came very close to rejecting Christianity altogether. But in searching for evidence on his own and reading all the information he could, not just what was provided to him at a secular university, he changed from a borderline evolutionist to a creationist because of the EVIDENCE that smacked him in the face.....

Jeff
Fri Nov 6 2009 11:27
Good thing religion is totally separate from politics in this country, then.
Dave
Fri Nov 6 2009 10:45
"I honestly cannot believe that a premise (genesis is literally true) which fails to explain the majority of findings in geology, biogeography, astronomy (I'm not even going to talk about biology) etc... and is based on an old religious text is actually thought to compete with modern research in terms of science. No wonder we're so behind much of the world in science and math. We're too busy chasing metaphors. "

That has nothing to do with why we are behind the rest of the world in science and math. Nothing at all, that is a completely separate issue. There are people that don't believe science in every part of the world. Some people take the Bible as literal word, others believe it is true but full of symbolism and extended metaphors. The latter viewpoint allows the meshing of science and religion to explain, at least for those with that belief, how the universe and Earth were created.

One problem we have nowadays is that scientific fact isn't scientific fact anymore, because we listen to the wrong people. Al Gore trotted around the world and got a Nobel Peace prize for pushing lies and speculation as Scientific fact. The environmentalists twist science to support their point of view, the other sides twist science to support their point of view. The real problem in this country and the rest of the world is not Science vs. Religion, its Science vs. Politics.

JDH
Fri Nov 6 2009 08:52
Nick,

And I suppose that Dr. Carter couldn't be the slightest teeniest tiny bit not objective when it comes to evaluating the 'evidence' for young-earth creationism? He certainly claimed objectivity, but again I ask is there any evidence that he would accept as being contrary to his obviously deeply held beliefs? If the answer is no, then he is not doing science. Period.

I honestly cannot believe that a premise (genesis is literally true) which fails to explain the majority of findings in geology, biogeography, astronomy (I'm not even going to talk about biology) etc... and is based on an old religious text is actually thought to compete with modern research in terms of science. No wonder we're so behind much of the world in science and math. We're too busy chasing metaphors.

L. Ron Hubbard
Fri Nov 6 2009 07:40
See, this is why I'm a Scientologist. And all the people said, Amen Tom Cruise.
Nick Brown
Thu Nov 5 2009 17:24
To Chuck Anziulewicz,

Yes, your quote from Dr. Carter is accurate. He did say "People who are not Christian are in a very bad state after they die, and I don’t want to see them in that state." That quote was from the beginning of his first lecture to explain the purpose behind his sharing of his research with others. But did he babble on about God and the Bible all day? No. I was there all day and I listened to him all day. He spoke about his research and other scientific findings. He did not preach. It is extremely ignorant to read one quote in the paper and assume that Dr. Carter spend the afternoon telling everyone that they were going to Hell if they don't believe. He stated what motivates him to share his research, and the rest of the talking was purely scientific. I listened to all of his lectures. They had A LOT to do with science and NOTHING to do with the Great Commission. He did not tell anyone to go out and witness. But what does my opinion matter for? I was only there. You read one quote taken out of context. Nice job.

And to JDH,

"Dr. Carter has started from a conclusion (the book of genesis is fact) and is only interested in finding (or creating) facts that he can twist to support this conclusion." That is what YOU said, and it cannot be farther from the truth. I would know. I was there listening with an open mind. What Dr. Carter did was take a claim made by the Bible (i.e. that the human race has descended from 2 people), thought of all the ramifications of that claim which should produce certain evidence today, and compared that to the actual evidence that we do observe today. Based on that comparison, he drew a conclusion as to whether the claim in the Bible was probable or improbable. Science. Beautiful when truly objective. It's just a shame that probably more people will read your false summarization of what Dr. Carter said than those who actually went and heard it first hand. Opinion is very powerful. So are lies. Sad.

Central Virginia Mountaineer
Thu Nov 5 2009 13:56
Each is entitled to his own opinion. Personally, I do not see evolution as being inconsistent with the concept of the creation of the Universe by a single Creator. Critical thinking, scientific methods, knowledge, faith, and reason are as necessary to the study and understanding of the Bible as they are to the understanding of the physical world in which we live. Carefully, thoughtfully, and objectively applying those tools to both science and theology demonstrates that opinions and interpretations change as knowledge increases.

Regardless of which translation of the Scriptures we prefer, the reality is that each of the modern translations is the accumulation of various, successive, attempts by scholars throughout the ages to express, in the language of each succeeding generation, ideas which originally were articulated orally, then recorded in ancient languages by writers who attempted to put into words the particular version of the oral tradition they happened to have been told.

Given there were no tape recorders in those ancient years, it seems to me to be completely irrational to assume that what we read in the modern English version of the Scriptures means exactly what we infer from a casual reading of the modern text which has resulted for this lengthy, cumulative process of speaking, writing, rewriting, and translation.

Your name
Thu Nov 5 2009 12:28
"Junius Lewis, pastor of the Greater Love Outreach Family Church, said he was very happy WVU allowed this event to take place and that Carter used very good scientific citations to support his theory."

Way to go Ms. Tandon, what perfeshunal journalism! When I want to verify the quality of scientific citations, the first person I turn to is the pastor of a local church, not to a professor of science at a local university.

Dave
Thu Nov 5 2009 08:00
A day is one rotation of the Earth on its axis. God created the universe in 6 days. Before he created the Earth, how did he know how long a day was?

If adam and eve were the first humans and they had children, did their children have children to populate the world? Are we all children of incest?

When you die it is like before you were born. Sorry, there is no god.
--------
You are certainly entitled to your viewpoint, but I don't really see how your comment adds to the discussion. It seems as if your goal is to provoke a fight about the existence of God, which this article is not about.

joel
Thu Nov 5 2009 02:52
A day is one rotation of the Earth on its axis. God created the universe in 6 days. Before he created the Earth, how did he know how long a day was?

If adam and eve were the first humans and they had children, did their children have children to populate the world? Are we all children of incest?

When you die it is like before you were born. Sorry, there is no god.

Nathan Zamprogno
Wed Nov 4 2009 17:41
I can't let the quote "I see evolution as the primary stumbling block for people accepting the Gospel." pass by without rebuttal.

On the contrary, All people with any common sense realise that modern science provides a worldview that is consonant with the objective reality of the world. If two bit hucksters like itinerant Creationists want to breeze through and claim that their 40 minute powerpoint presentation undoes 150 years of scholarly progress in the Sciences, then I suppose they'll always find a credulous audience in American churches, but that doesn't make them right.

No, it's when intelligent, seeking people who might respond to the message of the Gospel are told that they need to consider all of modern Science as a monstrous conspiracy; that people rode dinosaurs like the Flintstones, or that cobras, sharks and black widow spiders were conveniently vegetarian in the garden of Eden... that's when seekers are presented with a stumbling block. Creationist outfits like these turn people off Christianity a thousandhold more (am I being too generous?) than the testimonies they claim when they say their message is successfully evangelistic. As a Christian, I denounce them as disgraceful frauds and as enemies of Christ.

D
Wed Nov 4 2009 13:33
"I see evolution as the primary stumbling block for people accepting the Gospel," Carter said, noting that this is one of his main goals when speaking on creationism in public.
----
I don't necessarily see why evolution is a stumbling block for people accepting the Gospel. I happen to believe in both. I believe evolution is part of the Lord's plan, and that he created the conditions for it to happen, knew it would happen, and wanted it to happen. There is overwhelming scientific evidence to support evolution. Where there is not overwhelming evidence is how it started, unless you believe in creationism. Einstein once said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." In my opinion, I don't think there's a reason science and religion can't both be accepted.
JDH
Wed Nov 4 2009 11:19
Exactly, Arthur.

Dr. Carter has started from a conclusion (the book of genesis is fact) and is only interested in finding (or creating) facts that he can twist to support this conclusion. What he does is the opposite of science. As far as the young-earth creationists are concerned, the bible is inerrant and therefore evidence that disproves it absolutely cannot exist. The fact is that they use the language of science and rationality to give these religious beliefs a thin veneer of scientific respectability.

That this was reported in the DA as if it were an actual scientific debate is maddening. What next? Are we going to have "balanced" articles on homeopathy vs chemo for cancer treatment? Heliocentric vs geocentric solar system? That some people disagree with evolution doesn't make it a debate. It just makes them kooks.

Chuck Anziulewicz
Wed Nov 4 2009 11:17
That the FACT of evolution is even being debated in the 21st century is downright embarrassing. Evolutionary biologists continue to do research and learn more about the mechanisms involved. The fossil record, genetic evidence, radiometric dating, and even the basics of organic chemistry provide more than enough evidence to uphold Charles Darwin's original theories, and Darwin himself would be gratified and amazed by how much science has done to vindicate him.

As for Dr. Robert Carter and his "ministry," I think one comment from him was very telling: "People who are not Christian are in a very bad state after they die, and I don’t want to see them in that state."

In other words, this presentation obviously had less to do with science and more to do with the so-called "Great Commission" that evangelical Christians are so consumed with. For Dr. Carter, we might as well dispense with science altogether, because what really matters to him is that people who have not accepted Jesus as their Lord and Personal Savior are simply going to spend the rest of eternity undergoing horrific torture in Hell. Not because of anything they necessarily DID, mind you, but because of what they BELIEVED.

That my alma mater, West Virginia University, funded by tax dollars, gave this charlatan a platform for this mumbo-jumbo is unforgiveable.

Arthur
Wed Nov 4 2009 09:13
Darwin this, Darwin that. Look, Darwin was just one person writing 150 years ago. His basic theory was revolutionary, but has long been surpassed by the mountain of evidence from modern science; DNA, fossil findings and the genome etc. Darwin was proved to be right - most of the time. But modern scientists base evolutionary theory on the latest data to explain the fact of evolution, not some books 150 years ago. Any critique of Darwin is merely a critique of Darwin and can't alter the evidence.

I guess because religious people rely on venerating prophets and believing in an inerrant ancient text, they assume everyone else does. But science doesn't work like that. We don't reject the theory of gravity because Newton's methodology had flaws and he was a crackpot in other areas of his life. We rely on the evidence.







log out