The Faculty of Natural Sciences has accepted Creation and Evolution as valid scientific theories

Stabroek News
July 13, 2001

Dear Editor,

I see that Mr. Lutchman Gossai in his letter [ please note: link provided by LOSP web site ] captioned "Creation is not a scientific theory which can be tested" (30.6.2001) needs to know exactly what criteria were used by the Faculty of Natural Sciences of the University of Guyana to endorse creation.

The learned Faculty noted in advance of a faculty retreat in October 1998 the following three items of faith upon which science is based (as enumerated by the entomologist and anti-creationist, Stanley D. Beck in his article, "Natural Science and Creationist Theology", Bioscience 32 (Oct. 1982): 739).

1) The world is real and the human mind is capable of knowing its real nature.

2) The law of cause and effect.

3) Nature is unified.

The Faculty agreed at the retreat that the law of cause and effect leads inevitably to a choice between two alternatives:

1) an infinite chain of nonprimary causes, and

2) an uncaused primary cause of all causes;

and that we had traditionally allowed only the first to be studied, probably just because the second one is used by monotheistic religions to explain belief in God.

After further considering theorems of mathematical logic that showed that science cannot rise above the world of experience to check on its own premises, the Faculty of Natural Sciences removed any objection, implied or customary, to the study of the second alternative.

The common names for the two alternatives are evolution and creation. It therefore meant that the Faculty of Natural Sciences has accepted creation and evolution as two separate and equally valid scientific theories.

Faculty anticipated the alarms of evolutionists accustomed to getting their own way and those who would criticise from hearsay without much evidence, and thus formulated the resolution in terms of the two irreducible axioms. Only when you are satisfied that the logic is correct will you be able to see if your own creation story fits.

Since the acceptance was also worded so as not to compel the faculty to allocate scarce resources to the immediate provision of equal prominence to both theories, the resolution was in danger of dying of disuse and inertia. As a known creationist in the faculty, I therefore began to undertake the large task of redressing the balance. The best scientific creationism literature I knew came from the Institute of Creation Research (ICR). They happen to be Christians (in San Diego, California, USA), and their creationist premise is identical to our uncaused primary cause of all causes. One only has to bear in mind that they deduce and/or believe that the primary cause is a person, not a thing, who has revealed Himself in the bible through His Son, the Redeemer.

With my limited personal budget I chose to purchase several copies of Dr. Duane T. Gish's book, "The Amazing Story of Creation", because it contained examples from many branches of science, and because it was accurate and easy to read. Dr. Gish is a well-known creationist scientist who has, in the opinion of the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, answered his critics absolutely. His analyses of the evidence are eminently instructive. Many people reading his books find they are freed from a paralysis of their belief in their own ability to think out complex matters for themselves - highly recommended for training young minds.

I would go further than Mr. Gossai that the subject is a matter of national interest. It is the ultimate controversy of the ages, and embraces everything in the universe. It is the root of all other controversies, right down to the ones between brothers. When this is realized, it will put every single one of our present troubles, personal, national, and global, in the right perspective. And it will become clear that the solution amounts to a certain continuous consistent choice.

At least six people have asked me to repeat a seminar on "Evidence For A Young Earth", which was held by the Faculty of Natural Sciences late last year. I will repeat it on Wednesday 8th August 2001, at 5.00 p.m. in the Learning Resource Centre (LRC) of the UG Library, Turkeyen Campus. The presentation should take about an hour. Questions and comments would be entertained up to 8 p.m. I am willing to show that evolution (more precisely, macroevolution) has not been observed, and thus is still in the realms of belief, even more so than creation.

Because of limitations of space I hereby invite the learned letter writers and anyone sufficiently interested to write me before the end of July in care of the Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Guyana, P.O. Box 101110, Georgetown, or email: A 4-page outline of the previously held seminar will be sent at no cost by return post or by email attachment so that questions and criticisms may be more effectively prepared.

To show my bias I close with a quotation, which adorns the beginning of the first course material handed out to beginners in the natural sciences at UG.

He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite.

He is not duration or space, but he endures and is present.

He endures forever and is everywhere present.

And by existing always and everywhere, he constitutes duration and space.


And this much concerning God: to discourse of whom from the appearances of things does certainly belong to natural philosophy.


[From the General Scholium at the end of the PRINCIPIA (1687)]

Yours faithfully,

Alfred Bhulai