Doubting Darwin: Creationism to be presented at Santa Clara Library Monday

ST.  GEORGE – A St. George man will be presenting a creationist view on how life originated at the Santa Clara Library on Jan. 23.

Ever since its embrace by academia and injection into popular culture, the theory of evolution is considered by many, particularly scientists, to be the reality behind life’s origin. Chance, adaptation and natural selection rule the day in the theory proposed by Charles Darwin, which was introduced to the world in his book “Origin of the Species” in 1859.

Since then, the sometimes heated debate between Darwinists and Creationists has raged on. Was it chance that created man, or were humans the product of some intelligent design?

Darren Deveau believes that a higher power created life, and said that view is one often shoved aside by academics.

“Evolution seems to be taught as fact when it is not,” Deveau said.

In his presentation, Deveau said he will present scientific evidence that disproves the theory of evolution. He also added there would be no pointing to the Bible beyond its being the source of creationists’ beliefs.

“There will be no religion whatsoever,” Deveau said. “It will be science and science only.”

Previously, Deveau made arrangements to show his presentation at the Dixie Forum at Dixie State College, but said he was dropped once college staff learned more about his subject matter.

Marius vanderMerwe, an associate professor of biology at Dixie State College (who is also in charge of the Dixie Forum), said the college was not the proper venue for Deveau’s presentation.

“The real goal [of the Dixie Forum] is to get students exposed to world views that have academic merit,” vanderMerwe said.

As intelligent design is not accepted by a sizeable portion of the academic community, vanderMerwe noted; he did not feel comfortable with the nature of Deveau’s program.

“Why not teach honest science in school?” Deveau said.

Despite the setback, Deveau has pressed forward and will now be presenting his program on creationism, which he titles “Doubting Darwin,” at the Santa Clara Library on Monday, Jan. 23, at 5 p.m. for anyone interested in learning more.

Though not a biologist himself, Deveau said he has spent “thousands and thousands of hours” over the last 20 years studying evolution and creationism.

Anyone with questions for Deveau can reach him at [email protected]

[email protected]

Copyright 2012 St. George News. This material may not be published or rewritten without written consent.

Free News Delivery by Email

Would you like to have the day's news stories delivered right to your inbox every evening? Enter your email below to start!


  • Thomas Huxley January 20, 2012 at 12:02 pm

    It’s always good to see a sci-fi/fantasy author promoting the work of a fellow sci-fi/fantasy author.

    • Jezzybelle January 20, 2012 at 4:48 pm

      I bet you’re not reaaaally Thomas Huxley. 😛

  • Taylor Grin January 20, 2012 at 12:18 pm

    This article is fairly inaccurate on its second line. It is not “considered by many, particularly scientists, to be the reality behind life’s origin.” It is almost universally accepted by scientists. This is an example of journalism propping up inaccuracy views, creating a dilemma in fact where none exists.

    Sometimes the truth doesn’t lie between two views. Sometimes one is simply wrong. Creationism has no evidence.

  • Jezzybelle January 20, 2012 at 4:44 pm

    Oh snap. Gotta love Prof vanderMerwe. Oh no he di-in’t!

    “‘Evolution seems to be taught as fact when it is not,’ Deveau said.”

    Evolution IS fact. That evolution happens in nature is not a debateable phenomenon.

    The Theory of Evolution however (i.e. the origins of homosapiens in particular), is a theory. But surprisingly, most people are not aware of just how refined a scientific theory is. They don’t mess around, those scientists. (They don’t have TIME to mess around. They’re too busy. You know. With science!)

    “Was it chance that created man, or were humans the product of some intelligent design?”

    Two misleading inaccuracies here. Chance is how mutations happen, yes, but unless those mutations are neutral or beneficial (very rare), they’re not likely to get passed on. And that’s determined by the environment, mostly. That isn’t random. It’s brilliant. Even to a visual tech major.

    As for intelligent design, I feel that it’s something of a misnomer. There are several parts of the human body that you don’t have to be a medical professional to wonder about. Vestigial tails? Blind spots in the eyes? Why?

    I would be interested to see exactly what Mr. Deveau has been studying, as I have been hard-pressed to find any accurate source that can lend any credence to creationism or discredit evolution. I guess we’ll have to take the fun-bus right on over there.

  • Dr. Gary Hurd January 20, 2012 at 4:45 pm

    I have no idea whether the factual errors in this brief item originate with Mr. Kessler, or Mr. Deveau. There are several in a very short news item. First, the theory of evolution is not a theory about the origin if life. Darwin himself said that this was “mere rubbish” See my discussion at “A Short Outline of the Origin of Life.” (Google the title and my name for easy access).

    The first official publication of the theory of common descent and natural selection by Darwin, and Alfred Russel Wallace was in 1858 in two papers read before the Linnaean Society. As was the custom of the day, Darwin had been circulating drafts of his theory to colleagues for several years prior to this.

    The rediscovery of Gregor Mendel’s theory of genetics was viewed initially as a powerful opponent for Evolution. It was not until the realization that Darwin’s emphasis on individual survival was mistaken, and that the actual “unit” of evolution was the population, did genetics and evolutionary theory become reconciled. (The principal authors were Fisher, Haldane, and Dobzhansky writing in the 1930s). Darwin’s original theory had actually a bad time at explaining “chance” events.

    Mr. Kessler wrote that, “Darren Deveau believes that a higher power created life,” and also that “Deveau said he will present scientific evidence that disproves the theory of evolution. He also added there would be no pointing to the Bible beyond its being the source of creationists’ beliefs.” This is of course the ruin of all creationist claims and arguments. Without the presumption of the supernatural, the insistence that there are “gaps” in our scientific knowledge leads merely to the need for more work. The creationists want all basic science work to stop, so they can preserve their belief in magic. Biblical creationists want their particular religion to be the assumed “winner,” while ignoring that there are Muslim, Hindu, and Animist versions of creationism. I bet that Mr. Deveau will not be promoting New Age Gaianism worship. Any takers?

  • John D January 20, 2012 at 4:46 pm

    “In his presentation, Deveau said he will present scientific evidence that disproves the theory of evolution.”

    If he had any real scientific evidence he would be presenting it to peer-reviewed science journals, not in a library. Unfortunately many creationists don’t actually understand how real science works.

  • Brian Edwards January 20, 2012 at 5:04 pm

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. If the human body is the product of design then we have grounds for one hell of a class action suit against said designer for failing to provide a commodity in saleable condition and (of course) pain and suffering because that’s what bodies do best, suffer.

  • Erin January 20, 2012 at 8:56 pm

    There is one other factual error in this article. While Dr. van der Merwe was polite enough to look over Mr. Deveau’s recording of a previous lecture, he never promised a spot in the lecture series.

  • Wild Ted January 21, 2012 at 5:00 am

    ” … life originated at the Santa Clara Library on Jan. 23.”


    I think creationists claim it was 23 October 4004 BC.

    Not sure which is the more absurd.

    • peg January 24, 2012 at 12:08 am

      Wild Ted,
      Ditto! The first sentence was hilarious! Thanks for mentioning it!

  • Herman Cummings January 21, 2012 at 11:58 am

    The evolution theory is an irrational falsehood, zealously embraced by atheists, that is a phony conclusion of the 600+ million year fossil record. There is no “valid supporting data” for evolution. In a court of law, or in a public forum, the same evidence that evolutionists would use to try to “prove” the validity of that theory, I would utilize to reveal the truth of Genesis. In order to believe in evolution, you have to purposely ignore certain facts of reality. For example, when you see illustrations of primates being pictured as evolving into humans, it can be shown in a court of law that such a premise is impossible, because certain human and primate traits are different, and could not have ever been shared. The only “common ancestor” that humans and primates share is God Himself.

    Current Creationism has refused to teach the truth of the Genesis text, and either teaches foolishness (young Earth), or false doctrines (non-literal reading of the text). Creationists thoughtlessly try to prove “Creationism”, rather than seeking and teaching the truth of Genesis. How can an untruth, ever prove another lie, to be in error? You can’t do it. That is why Creationism fails. It essentially is also a lie, and should be discarded, even by Bible believers.

    The correct opposing view to evolution is the “Observations of Moses”, which conveys the truth of Genesis chapter one.

    Those that imply that God used evolution are infidels at worse, or clowns at best, that refuse to learn the truth of Genesis. The truth has been available for more than 18 years. Such a discussion is currently silly, and shows stubbornness against learning the truth of God’s Word.

    There are no “creation stories” in Genesis. In fact, about all of theology and creationism have no idea what Moses was writing about. You can’t simply take an advanced book of math or science, and try to read from it on your own without personal instruction.

    For example, Genesis declares that mankind has been on this Earth, in his present likeness, for more than 60 million years. The “male and female” in Genesis chapter one was not “Adam & Eve”. Has modern science discovered that yet?

    Herman Cummings
    [email protected]

    • Jezzybelle January 21, 2012 at 11:28 pm

      I’m no theologian or religious scholar, so I won’t comment on any of your religious statements. I’ve attempted to study genesis and your interpretation baffles me, but I’ll assume you’re reading a different translation or something like that. Doesn’t matter.

      But, what evidence against evolution do you have aside from “illustrations” (which many scientists themselves don’t like because they do not accurately portray what actually happened)? All of the evidence to my knowledge has supported or refined evolution, so if you would be so kind, I would like to see some unbiased scientific journals that pose doubts based on more than speculation. Facts, as far as I’m aware, are not defined in a “court of law”… I don’t understand where you’re going with that.

      I also wonder if you would elaborate on human/primate traits. We share many traits and a huge amount of DNA with apes, but there’s nothing that says mutation cannot add or take away certain other traits.

  • -Mike- January 21, 2012 at 12:57 pm

    I’m all for the debate between Creationism and Evolution… especially when preachers (hear Mr Deveau’s sermons at Southland Bible Church) are presenting “scientific evidence” against evolution. It’s nice to see that the folks at the college had enough sense to send this guy elsewhere.

    As a biologist, a believer in evolution (see: natural selection), and a Christian, I may be a walking contradiction, but there are facts, theory, and faith. Facts back up the biology and the constant evolution taking place on earth. Call it what you want: mutations, natural selection, survival of the fittest… it’s all evolution. Theory says that humans evolved out of a random chance meeting of the right “stuff” in the bottom of the ocean a long time ago… it can’t be PROVEN, as nobody was there, nor has it happened since then… this doesn’t mean it DIDN’T happen, though. Faith is, by definition, believing without seeing, and therefore impossible to prove.

    I don’t have a problem with any of these categories, as long as they’re mostly separated. I see the value in all of them. What people need to realize is that we all have strengths and weaknesses (unless you’re like me and great at everything… ha!). I have a feeling Mr Deveau is a great preacher and puts a lot of time and effort into his sermons, but he’s getting confused about his credibility and “strength” in science. Don’t ignore the facts, and don’t call something a fact that isn’t.

    Even if you’re saying “it will be science and science only”, it’s still a sermon by a preacher who dabbles in science. I might go just for the laughs.

  • Not a Mormon January 21, 2012 at 8:58 pm

    google “Time Cube”. All answers lie therein.

  • DJ January 23, 2012 at 9:37 pm

    It was a very intersting information meeting.

  • Patrick C Marks January 30, 2012 at 4:42 pm

    Summarily dismissing creationism as “unscientific” and immediately gracing Darwinism as automatically credible because it is supposedly scientific misses the point of science in the first place. Science is about testing and observation. While adaptation has been observed, macro-evolutionary change (i.e. completely new information that codes for necessary structures in an organisms DNA by purely random processes) has never been observed either in the fossil record or by direct observation. Thus, both evolution and creation are constructs about how something MIGHT have happened in the past. That’s not science. That’s a philosophical (or religious) conclusion drawn from the observable evidence. Evolution and creation are on the same playing field. For more on this consider

  • Dr. Gary Hurd January 31, 2012 at 4:02 pm

    I am greatly relieved that Paster Marks no longer is a school teacher, particularly as his website claims he was a science teacher. For one thing, Paster Marks clearly has no idea what a species even is, let alone how they emerge from earlier ones. Nobody should ever teach biology without understanding that. To remedy this ignorance, I recommend reading “What is a Species and What is Not,” by the late Ernst Mayr.

    Typical of creationists, Paster Marks falsely claims that new species have not been observed emerging from older ones. We have done this many times, both in nature, and in experimental settings. We can now even track the actual mutations- one by one- that lead to these new species. I have compiled a list of dozens of examples, some a century old. They are available at “Emergence if New Species”

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.