MR JUSTIN Defreitas must first know his science before basing claims on it.

In his letter titled ‘We live science every day’ (Guyana Chronicle 13.04.05) he declared, “the truth is that scientists found out a very long time ago that the sun does not move”.

There are three things wrong here:

1. There is no trace of probability in his declaration. He is inconsistent with his own claim. Even Pontius Pilate was consistent in his empirical truth (John 18:38a) and God is consistent in His claim of absolute truth (John 18:37b).

2. There is no trace of the provisional nature of science in his declaration. Aristarchus and Copernicus were only declaring what they found out then.

3. Today’s astronomers have found good evidence that the Sun does move against the background of stars. It appears to be travelling around the Galaxy at about 120 miles per second, over six times the speed of the Earth around it. That is certainly some movement when one considers that the Sun is about 300,000 times more massive than the Earth!

The “rising sun” seems to trouble his limited knowledge.

All optical astronomical observatories on Earth have vital information on the limits of daily observation time; the terms used by those scientists are “sunrise” and “sunset”.

Would Mr Defreitas be so kind as to propose acceptable alternative terms that are more reflective of his purely heliocentric beliefs?

Astronomers use such coordinates as are most convenient to the matters at hand. The sun-centred coordinates are used when calculating in the solar system, galactic coordinates when calculating in the galaxy, but most often used today are the geotopocentric coordinates from the standpoint of the surface of the Earth at which the observations are made.

Conclusive proof that Mr De Freitas does not understand the true nature of science is his professed ability to see science.

My Concise Oxford Dictionary gives five meanings for the word “science”. All of them are abstract, that is, we can only see, hear, feel, smell and taste the effects.

In other words we can only perceive the applications and successes or failures of the forecasts of science and of God.

Every time I pick up a telephone or drive my car (but no longer to UG as Mr De Freitas thinks) I thank God that he still keeps his laws that the scientists discovered and the engineers applied for me to enjoy these and other conveniences.

I said as much when I quoted Heb. 1:3, “he upholds all things by the word of His power”.

Having studied, taught and applied them over many years, I can even claim to be a kind of lawyer for these laws of God.

But, seriously, I can’t ‘challenge’ Mr De Freitas to “debate the merits of the Bible as it relates to the natural world” unless he sits with me.

For one newspaper did not publish a letter I wrote on every single point raised by Mr Defreitas in a letter some three years ago; in fact they seem to have closed the correspondence.

And he would not sit with me, for I did publicly invite the evolutionists (he claimed to be one) to a seminar on “The Young Earth”, where we could have at least begun to consider evidence together; but neither he nor the other evolutionists showed up!

As to his invitation for me to tell him of the accurately recorded forecasts in the Bible, all he has to do is to go ask one of the many Bible schools available.

If he is not averse to my company, I am also available.
ALFRED BHULAI