What do you think?
Rate this book
Welwyn Commentary #48
Who Made God? Searching for a Theory of Everything
Author Bill Bryson "I am immensely grateful [for the book]". Fay Weldon calls the book "Thoughtful, readable, witty, wise ..." Dr John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, "... written in a very lively style and conveys complex subjects in a palatable form". The Principal of London Theological Seminary, England, "Richard Dawkins has more than met his match". A book written by a distinguished scientist about the existence of God, which has chapter headings like Sooty and the universe , Steam engine to the stars and The tidy pachyderm , has to be different. It is. Addressing profound questions of science, philosophy and faith with an amazing lightness of touch, Edgar Andrews exposes the pretensions of the new atheism of Richard Dawkins and others, blending incisive arguments with gentle humour. However, the author s aim is not simply to raise a standard against the aggressive atheism of our age but to provide a logically consistent and altogether more satisfying alternative. He describes how his fellow physicists dream of discovering a theory of everything that will embrace every physical process and phenomenon in the cosmos. But he points out that there is more to existence than the material world; the things that make life worth living are mainly non-material. Can there, then, be a theory of everything that includes not only space, time, matter and energy but also the realms of the heart, mind, conscience and spirit? Yes, indeed, as this book shows. It is the hypothesis of God, a theory that, in spite of its opponents, still towers above the barren landscape of atheism and despair.
304 pages, Hardcover
First published June 1, 1996
About the author
Edgar Andrews
13 books10 followersEdgar Harold Andrews is an English physicist and Bible-teacher. He is Emeritus Professor of Materials at Queen Mary, University of London and co-pastor of the Campus Church, Welwyn Garden City, UK..
Professionally, he holds a BSc degree in theoretical physics at the University of London (1953), a PhD in applied physics (1960), and a DSc (higher doctorate) in physics (1968).
He is a Fellow of the Institute of Physics (FInstP), Fellow of the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining (FIMMM), Chartered Engineer (CEng, UK) and Chartered Physicist (CPhys).
Andrews is an international expert on the science of polymers (large molecules) and was a Consultant to the Dow Chemical Company, USA, for over 30 years, and to the 3M Company, USA, for 20 years.
He has written extensively on the subject of the Bible and science, including the books "God, science and evolution", "Christ and the cosmos", "Who made God? Searching for a theory of everything" and "What is Man? Adam, alien or ape?".
He has also written "The Spirit has come" (a survey of the Bible's teaching on the Holy Spirit) and two read-like-a-book Bible Commentaries, "Free in Christ" (Galatians) and "A glorious High Throne" (Hebrews).
Professionally, he holds a BSc degree in theoretical physics at the University of London (1953), a PhD in applied physics (1960), and a DSc (higher doctorate) in physics (1968).
He is a Fellow of the Institute of Physics (FInstP), Fellow of the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining (FIMMM), Chartered Engineer (CEng, UK) and Chartered Physicist (CPhys).
Andrews is an international expert on the science of polymers (large molecules) and was a Consultant to the Dow Chemical Company, USA, for over 30 years, and to the 3M Company, USA, for 20 years.
He has written extensively on the subject of the Bible and science, including the books "God, science and evolution", "Christ and the cosmos", "Who made God? Searching for a theory of everything" and "What is Man? Adam, alien or ape?".
He has also written "The Spirit has come" (a survey of the Bible's teaching on the Holy Spirit) and two read-like-a-book Bible Commentaries, "Free in Christ" (Galatians) and "A glorious High Throne" (Hebrews).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 48 reviews
December 31, 2020
After recommending this to a friend, I found that this was far too complex for my tiny mind. It might be useful as a reference book and to counter Dawkins but I wouldn't attempt to read it through as it's definitely not light reading!
February 22, 2010
I don’t know if I’ve ever had more fun reading a book so steeped in scientific terminology… in fact, I’m sure I haven’t! Andrews, who serves as Emeritus Professor of Materials at the University of London, is one of the world’s foremost experts on molecular science. He also possesses a keen wit and employs a great sense of charming British humor in his writing (think Monty Python without the crassness).
In this book, Andrews addresses what he calls “the sceptic’s favourite question”: If God made everything, then who made God? Richard Dawkins and many other “new atheists” seem to think this is a trump card that destroys any argument in favor of a Creator God. Rather than simply refuting the arguments of these atheists, though, Andrews instead asserts that this is an “unanswerable question” not because Christians do not have an answer, but because the question leaves the word “God” undefined. The question “Who made God?” begs the question “Who is God?”
With that in mind, Andrews seeks to come up with a scientific “theory of everything”, which he says is every scientist’s dream. Whereas many Christian apologists have devoted themselves to refuting the assertions of atheists (primarily in regards to Darwinian evolution), the author’s goal is to promote a positive thesis (that God exists and reveals Himself in the Bible) rather than a negative antithesis (that Darwinian evolution is false). His book’s purpose then, is “to explore how the biblical hypothesis of God provides a comprehensible, intellectually consistent and spiritually satisfying view of being that encompasses man’s experience of life, the universe and everything.”
Andrews explores the origin of life using what in science is called the “hypothetical approach”. This involves investigating two (or more) mutually exclusive hypotheses, and observing which hypothesis accounts most plausibly for what we observe in every area of life. He reasons that this is the approach seen in the Bible itself. Nowhere in God’s Word do we find any argument that seeks to prove God’s existence. It is assumed from the very beginning: “In the beginning God…”
The book goes through all of the most recent scientific theories regarding the origin of life, as well as the history of how those theories developed. He covers everything from molecular biology to astrophysics to natural selection to string theory. This branches out into discussions of philosophy and psychology. At every point, though, these complex scientific theories are presented in layman’s terms, making heavy use of analogy. At each point of discussion, Andrews explains how “natural science” (which assumes there is no God) accounts for what is observed, and then compares it with his hypothesis of God (which assumes that He exists and that the Bible offers explanation for all that is observed). It is truly fascinating.
If you are a fan of books dealing with the “Creation vs. Evolution” debate, this is a must-read. If you are skeptical of God’s existence or the authority of his Word, this will address your questions better than just about anything else out there. If you’ve never read a book in this genre, this is a great place to start! In other words, buy this book… eventually. It’s been a hot seller, and is currently unavailable pending a second printing! When it is available, you’ll find it here. In the meantime, feel free to borrow my copy!
Also, you can find a video of the author introducing this book here. It’s worth watching just to hear Edgar Andrews’ voice!
February 9, 2021
Edgar Andrews is a physicist who has written this book to defend the God hypothesis (i.e. God is real and is the best explanation for man’s experiences and the universe). Contra to what modern scientists believe, if you want an explanation for why the universe exists, the God hypothesis is necessary. Science, itself, cannot explain the most fundamental questions of existence.
One thing to be said about Andrews is that he writes in a way that non-experts in physics can understand. He usually has a simple explanation to help facilitate understanding regarding some complex theory or idea in physics (even though his analogies aren’t always very good). He is clearly knowledgeable and you will definitely learn much about science by reading this book.
I am not very knowledgeable in science so I’m not really qualified to address his scientific discussions. I will say that he rejects the concept of theistic evolution and many of his arguments sound fairly similar to those used by modern Intelligent Design theorists. However, I did find his 14th and 15th chapters, where he discusses evolution and mutations, to be pretty interesting.
He has short blurbs before each chapter, where he summarizes what he is going to talk about in the chapter and then gives some definitions of terms that will appear in the chapter. I thought this was very helpful, but then he seems to give up in some chapters, such as chapter three, in which he says all the new terms are explained in the text. But if you’re going to explain new words in the text, there’s no point to defining them in other chapters in the beginning blurb. So he was inconsistent in how helpful his term defining was.
As regards philosophy, however, Andrews leaves much to be desired. Andrews makes quite an ironic statement in chapter 11, p. 167, where he says he finds it surprising that many theists (e.g. St. Augustine) would find common ground with non-Christians (e.g. Benedict Spinoza, a pantheist, and Richard Dawkins, an atheist) in considering miracles as in accord with natural laws. Andrews relies on a faulty definition of miracle, “an event that cannot be explained as the outcome of natural law” (emphasis in original). What is ironic is that Andrews doesn’t understand how much like an atheist he sounds in his rejection of theistic philosophy. But he also doesn’t understand what Augustine means when he said the laws of nature cannot be transgressed because everything that happens according to God’s will occurs by natural processes. It is not hard to see how this could be. If I put a wooden fence in my yard, eventually it will wither and decay because of the weather. But if I remove the fence before this happens, I have stopped this natural occurrence from taking place. But I have not transgressed the natural law of decay by removing the fence. I have simply exerted a different law on the fence. So, for example, when Jesus turned water into wine, this was not a transgression of any natural law. Jesus changed the water at the molecular level to make it become wine. The miracle is not that any such natural law was transgressed. The miracle was that water cannot change into wine, even at the molecular level, instantaneously without miraculous intervention.
Andrews also sets his sights on the Ontological Argument (the Anselmian version), an argument notorious for being misunderstood by those who attempt to rebut it. Rather than going to the source, he contents himself to read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to understand the argument (I like the SEP just fine, but if you’re going to address the argument in a book or article, you really ought to have first-hand knowledge of the argument). Andrews’ critique is simply that the OA leads nowhere. The difficulty of the argument arises when we draw the conclusion that the idea of God, which exists in the mind, must correspond to some objective reality outside ourselves. This does seem like a difficulty, unless you consider that Andrews is only considering one premise of the argument and attempting to draw a conclusion about God’s reality from that. I am not going to give a full defense of the argument here. I am certainly no expert on Anselm’s argument. But Andrews is missing several key features of Anselm’s argument, such as: 1) God is, by definition, a being greater than which none can be conceived; 2) There are entities which exist solely in the mind (e.g. unicorns) and entities which exist in reality and in the mind (e.g. President Trump); 3) A being which exists in reality and in the mind is greater than an entity which exists solely in the mind; and 4) If God is a being greater than which none can be conceived, it seems plausible that we can conclude from these facts that God exists in reality as well as in the mind. This argument clearly will not be convincing to everyone. Anselm was attempting to find an a priori argument for God’s existence; that is, an argument apart from experience using reason alone. Andrews did not do his homework while attempting to rebut this argument, so he actually sounds a lot like Richard Dawkins trying to refute it.
Andrews is also constantly uncharitable toward Christian philosophers and apologists who have anything in common with atheists. He essentially calls Christians who use philosophical, scientific, and pragmatic arguments cowards because they are falling into some kind of trap set out by atheists. Instead, Andrews believes we should use the Bible’s concept of God and argue from there. Of course, this is clearly a question-begging approach (no wonder Andrews is so hostile toward philosophy), but he waves that away by saying he’s not really assuming what he wants to prove, but can make certain assumptions that turn out to be true if we assume the God of the Bible. This doesn’t escape the charge of question-begging because for one thing, Andrews doesn’t exactly make his case that the Bible’s concept of God makes correct assumptions about the world while the “evolution” makes false assumptions. Andrews dismisses the arguments of theistic evolutionists (claiming, for example, that Francis Collins doesn’t make a case for it in one of his books, rather than showing how theistic evolution actually fails). He also claims that the God of the Bible predicts a dualistic anthropology of man while evolution predicts a monistic anthropology. Of course, this is false. There are, in fact, Christians who are physicalists, even though they are in the minority. Another reason he doesn’t escape the charge of question-begging is simply because he doesn’t adequately justify his argument that it’s not question-begging. He could argue that he is merely starting with the Bible as a foundation. That would be wrong-headed but at least it would be more defensible. Instead, Andrews says he’s not saying the God hypothesis is proof of anything, merely that it comports with human experience and observation. But what if there’s some third hypothesis Andrews hasn’t considered apart from the God of the Bible which also comports with human observation and experience? Or what if he’s wrong about the implications of the God of the Bible and evolution? Andrews cannot escape the charge of circularity.
Again, Andrews’ book is very readable, and you will learn a lot about some scientific concepts through easy to follow analogies. However, he doesn’t adequately support the main argument of his book and he clearly doesn’t understand philosophy. If you’re going to read his book, take any claims about philosophy with several grains of salt.
One thing to be said about Andrews is that he writes in a way that non-experts in physics can understand. He usually has a simple explanation to help facilitate understanding regarding some complex theory or idea in physics (even though his analogies aren’t always very good). He is clearly knowledgeable and you will definitely learn much about science by reading this book.
I am not very knowledgeable in science so I’m not really qualified to address his scientific discussions. I will say that he rejects the concept of theistic evolution and many of his arguments sound fairly similar to those used by modern Intelligent Design theorists. However, I did find his 14th and 15th chapters, where he discusses evolution and mutations, to be pretty interesting.
He has short blurbs before each chapter, where he summarizes what he is going to talk about in the chapter and then gives some definitions of terms that will appear in the chapter. I thought this was very helpful, but then he seems to give up in some chapters, such as chapter three, in which he says all the new terms are explained in the text. But if you’re going to explain new words in the text, there’s no point to defining them in other chapters in the beginning blurb. So he was inconsistent in how helpful his term defining was.
As regards philosophy, however, Andrews leaves much to be desired. Andrews makes quite an ironic statement in chapter 11, p. 167, where he says he finds it surprising that many theists (e.g. St. Augustine) would find common ground with non-Christians (e.g. Benedict Spinoza, a pantheist, and Richard Dawkins, an atheist) in considering miracles as in accord with natural laws. Andrews relies on a faulty definition of miracle, “an event that cannot be explained as the outcome of natural law” (emphasis in original). What is ironic is that Andrews doesn’t understand how much like an atheist he sounds in his rejection of theistic philosophy. But he also doesn’t understand what Augustine means when he said the laws of nature cannot be transgressed because everything that happens according to God’s will occurs by natural processes. It is not hard to see how this could be. If I put a wooden fence in my yard, eventually it will wither and decay because of the weather. But if I remove the fence before this happens, I have stopped this natural occurrence from taking place. But I have not transgressed the natural law of decay by removing the fence. I have simply exerted a different law on the fence. So, for example, when Jesus turned water into wine, this was not a transgression of any natural law. Jesus changed the water at the molecular level to make it become wine. The miracle is not that any such natural law was transgressed. The miracle was that water cannot change into wine, even at the molecular level, instantaneously without miraculous intervention.
Andrews also sets his sights on the Ontological Argument (the Anselmian version), an argument notorious for being misunderstood by those who attempt to rebut it. Rather than going to the source, he contents himself to read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to understand the argument (I like the SEP just fine, but if you’re going to address the argument in a book or article, you really ought to have first-hand knowledge of the argument). Andrews’ critique is simply that the OA leads nowhere. The difficulty of the argument arises when we draw the conclusion that the idea of God, which exists in the mind, must correspond to some objective reality outside ourselves. This does seem like a difficulty, unless you consider that Andrews is only considering one premise of the argument and attempting to draw a conclusion about God’s reality from that. I am not going to give a full defense of the argument here. I am certainly no expert on Anselm’s argument. But Andrews is missing several key features of Anselm’s argument, such as: 1) God is, by definition, a being greater than which none can be conceived; 2) There are entities which exist solely in the mind (e.g. unicorns) and entities which exist in reality and in the mind (e.g. President Trump); 3) A being which exists in reality and in the mind is greater than an entity which exists solely in the mind; and 4) If God is a being greater than which none can be conceived, it seems plausible that we can conclude from these facts that God exists in reality as well as in the mind. This argument clearly will not be convincing to everyone. Anselm was attempting to find an a priori argument for God’s existence; that is, an argument apart from experience using reason alone. Andrews did not do his homework while attempting to rebut this argument, so he actually sounds a lot like Richard Dawkins trying to refute it.
Andrews is also constantly uncharitable toward Christian philosophers and apologists who have anything in common with atheists. He essentially calls Christians who use philosophical, scientific, and pragmatic arguments cowards because they are falling into some kind of trap set out by atheists. Instead, Andrews believes we should use the Bible’s concept of God and argue from there. Of course, this is clearly a question-begging approach (no wonder Andrews is so hostile toward philosophy), but he waves that away by saying he’s not really assuming what he wants to prove, but can make certain assumptions that turn out to be true if we assume the God of the Bible. This doesn’t escape the charge of question-begging because for one thing, Andrews doesn’t exactly make his case that the Bible’s concept of God makes correct assumptions about the world while the “evolution” makes false assumptions. Andrews dismisses the arguments of theistic evolutionists (claiming, for example, that Francis Collins doesn’t make a case for it in one of his books, rather than showing how theistic evolution actually fails). He also claims that the God of the Bible predicts a dualistic anthropology of man while evolution predicts a monistic anthropology. Of course, this is false. There are, in fact, Christians who are physicalists, even though they are in the minority. Another reason he doesn’t escape the charge of question-begging is simply because he doesn’t adequately justify his argument that it’s not question-begging. He could argue that he is merely starting with the Bible as a foundation. That would be wrong-headed but at least it would be more defensible. Instead, Andrews says he’s not saying the God hypothesis is proof of anything, merely that it comports with human experience and observation. But what if there’s some third hypothesis Andrews hasn’t considered apart from the God of the Bible which also comports with human observation and experience? Or what if he’s wrong about the implications of the God of the Bible and evolution? Andrews cannot escape the charge of circularity.
Again, Andrews’ book is very readable, and you will learn a lot about some scientific concepts through easy to follow analogies. However, he doesn’t adequately support the main argument of his book and he clearly doesn’t understand philosophy. If you’re going to read his book, take any claims about philosophy with several grains of salt.
February 25, 2016
Professor Andrews argues in this book for the existence of God, yet he does so by starting with the biblical idea of God. Instead of arguing from our experience to a minimalist God (such as many classical arguments tend to do) or arguing for a "God of the gaps" to fill in what we don't understand, Professor Andrews begins with God as the Bible defines Him and then compares this "hypothesis" with what we find in science. His argument is that what we find in the world around us is what we would expect to find if what the Bible says is true, and that it is not what we would expect to find if evolution and atheism was true. Thus, while he doesn't use scientific measurements to prove God (God is non-physical), he uses scientific methods to argue for his existence. And because God is the biblical God (e.g. He is the sovereign Creator of all things), His existence does have implications for science.
Professor Andrews' writing is very witty and pleasant to read. He is able to explain complicated scientific theories in a clear and enjoyable way. It is interesting to compare this book with the writings of presuppositionalists like Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bahnsen, since their approach is very similar. On the one hand, Professor Andrews goes beyond a theory of apologetics to the nitty gritty of applying it to modern day science (Van Til and Bahnsen did this some, but they were apologists, not scientists with all the degrees in science that Professor Andrews has). On the other hand, Professor Andrews seems to give science a little bit more neutrality from a biblical worldview than Van Til and Bahnsen. While he argues that the Bible and God's existence has implications for science, he also seems to come to science as neutral observation and theorizing from the facts of our world and then compares it with what the Bible says. Van Til and Bahnsen would argue that even the observation and theorizing must be done with a biblical worldview. Perhaps this is a subtle difference, but I think it shows itself when Professor Andrews argues that the big bang theory (or something like it) is what we would expect if what the Bible says is true (and attempts to harmonize it with literal six day creation). Chapters seven and eight seemed weak in my opinion. Overall, though, he does a good job showing how this world does not match up with evolution or atheistic theory, and that biblical Christianity is a much better explanation for the way the world is.
Professor Andrews' writing is very witty and pleasant to read. He is able to explain complicated scientific theories in a clear and enjoyable way. It is interesting to compare this book with the writings of presuppositionalists like Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bahnsen, since their approach is very similar. On the one hand, Professor Andrews goes beyond a theory of apologetics to the nitty gritty of applying it to modern day science (Van Til and Bahnsen did this some, but they were apologists, not scientists with all the degrees in science that Professor Andrews has). On the other hand, Professor Andrews seems to give science a little bit more neutrality from a biblical worldview than Van Til and Bahnsen. While he argues that the Bible and God's existence has implications for science, he also seems to come to science as neutral observation and theorizing from the facts of our world and then compares it with what the Bible says. Van Til and Bahnsen would argue that even the observation and theorizing must be done with a biblical worldview. Perhaps this is a subtle difference, but I think it shows itself when Professor Andrews argues that the big bang theory (or something like it) is what we would expect if what the Bible says is true (and attempts to harmonize it with literal six day creation). Chapters seven and eight seemed weak in my opinion. Overall, though, he does a good job showing how this world does not match up with evolution or atheistic theory, and that biblical Christianity is a much better explanation for the way the world is.
Shelved as 'shelved'
July 7, 2016I read chapter eight Steam Engine to the Stars: Time and the Hypothesis of God.
I love using science to explain the truth of God's word. Some of my thoughts on the concepts found in chapter eight. Outreach to the scientific...
Second law of thermodynamics: Entropy (amount of disorder and chaos, mathematically equal to the net flow of energy divided by time, Q/T) can only increase or stay the same (ex. theoretical perfect engine).
Time can only progress through an increase in entropy.
Can time only exist in the presence of sin? Time stops (or is infinite) in perfect state of constant entropy, and time stops in maximum state of entropy (total chaos).
Hebrew study of Mah (chaos) and Messiah (One who comes to destroy the reign of chaos).
Chaos, increasing entropy, can only be controlled, or decreased, by an external force. It takes hard work to set things in order, to reduce entropy. We are in the larger system of increasing entropy (we expend more energy to set in order, than the energy, or benefit, we receive from our work). Only God can intervene in the self-destructing system (i.e. the universe) to save.
What is the affect of grace, forgiveness, and love on a broken world? God brings peace. God reaches into our world, into our hearts, and reduces entropy, spiritually. This gives us strength to live in this self-destructing world.
God also chose to decrease entropy in our physical world through miracles in the name of Jesus for the teaching of His good news about spiritual perfection given through the work of Jesus, this elimination of chaos and entropy in our souls.
I love using science to explain the truth of God's word. Some of my thoughts on the concepts found in chapter eight. Outreach to the scientific...
Second law of thermodynamics: Entropy (amount of disorder and chaos, mathematically equal to the net flow of energy divided by time, Q/T) can only increase or stay the same (ex. theoretical perfect engine).
Time can only progress through an increase in entropy.
Can time only exist in the presence of sin? Time stops (or is infinite) in perfect state of constant entropy, and time stops in maximum state of entropy (total chaos).
Hebrew study of Mah (chaos) and Messiah (One who comes to destroy the reign of chaos).
Chaos, increasing entropy, can only be controlled, or decreased, by an external force. It takes hard work to set things in order, to reduce entropy. We are in the larger system of increasing entropy (we expend more energy to set in order, than the energy, or benefit, we receive from our work). Only God can intervene in the self-destructing system (i.e. the universe) to save.
What is the affect of grace, forgiveness, and love on a broken world? God brings peace. God reaches into our world, into our hearts, and reduces entropy, spiritually. This gives us strength to live in this self-destructing world.
God also chose to decrease entropy in our physical world through miracles in the name of Jesus for the teaching of His good news about spiritual perfection given through the work of Jesus, this elimination of chaos and entropy in our souls.
July 14, 2012
Edgar Andrews is a distinguished scientist who, in this easy to read volume, offers a strong defence of the Christian faith in the light of science. It is a witty, engaging and accessible read aimed squarely at the lay person and he takes complicated and esoteric ideas and makes them understandable.
Andrews doesn't set out to respond to any particular authors, although he does do so along the way and deals with numerous Atheistic arguments. Rather he posits the hypothesis that the God of the Bible is true, and then sets out to demonstrate how this hypothesis is supported by science. Andrews strength is very much in physics and he presents a fascinating discussion of the Big Bang theory, quantum physics, string theory, time and other issues. He also presents a very compelling case in regard to molecular biology, the creation of life and genetics. It may just be me but I got a little lost in some of the philosophical discussion, but that's not a major feature of the book, in any case. It should be noted that he doesn't deal with some of the thornier issues. For example, he presents a solid case against the spontaneous creation of life and macro-evolution, but doesn't deal with issues of the fossil record, evidence for the flood and so on, nor does he deal with the problem of evil in any depth (although he does touch on the fall). In this regard, I think, he plays to his strengths as a scientist and does so very well.
'Who Made God' is well worth a read for anyone wanting to understand more about a Christian view of faith and science.
Andrews doesn't set out to respond to any particular authors, although he does do so along the way and deals with numerous Atheistic arguments. Rather he posits the hypothesis that the God of the Bible is true, and then sets out to demonstrate how this hypothesis is supported by science. Andrews strength is very much in physics and he presents a fascinating discussion of the Big Bang theory, quantum physics, string theory, time and other issues. He also presents a very compelling case in regard to molecular biology, the creation of life and genetics. It may just be me but I got a little lost in some of the philosophical discussion, but that's not a major feature of the book, in any case. It should be noted that he doesn't deal with some of the thornier issues. For example, he presents a solid case against the spontaneous creation of life and macro-evolution, but doesn't deal with issues of the fossil record, evidence for the flood and so on, nor does he deal with the problem of evil in any depth (although he does touch on the fall). In this regard, I think, he plays to his strengths as a scientist and does so very well.
'Who Made God' is well worth a read for anyone wanting to understand more about a Christian view of faith and science.
January 1, 2013
There are poor books, mediocre books, and books that stand out for their clarity and enjoyment. And Who Made God? by Edgar Andrews is in the latter category. This is a response to the New (and old) Atheism by a Christian who is also a scientist. So the argument is both scientific and philosophical, and an excellent balance of both.
The author starts where all good science starts: with definitions. The atheist question, "Who made God?" falls apart once a definition of God which includes his eternal existence, is put on the table. To ask "who made the always existing God" thus indicates its illogicality once God is defined.
Then, ranging through scientific issues such as quantum mechanics, string theory, DNA, and much much more, he argues that science and religion need one another. Through the latter portion of the book he shows time and time again, that the "God hypothesis" is really the only explanation of what exists.
If you want a book that explains thing well, argues its case clearly, then get this one. It really is good.
The author starts where all good science starts: with definitions. The atheist question, "Who made God?" falls apart once a definition of God which includes his eternal existence, is put on the table. To ask "who made the always existing God" thus indicates its illogicality once God is defined.
Then, ranging through scientific issues such as quantum mechanics, string theory, DNA, and much much more, he argues that science and religion need one another. Through the latter portion of the book he shows time and time again, that the "God hypothesis" is really the only explanation of what exists.
If you want a book that explains thing well, argues its case clearly, then get this one. It really is good.
August 4, 2012
Ad Hoc and just so arguments. Achingly silly literalistic applications of Biblical texts to scientific theory. Old Earth creationism has rarely looked so good--Andrews is an entertaining writer--but it just doesn't cohere or make sense. The new atheists make easy targets, and Andrews serves them up. But even this lay person can see that his DNA chapter is weak, weak, weak. Can't remember why I purchased this--probably some friend who thought it would address my views on evolution. But it sure didn't.
June 14, 2011
This is unlike any book I've read- basically a science/philosophy book proving the existence of God. Andrews discusses some complicated subjects in detail, like quantum mechanics and molecular biology, but does so in a way that (usually!) doesn't overwhelm the lay person. This was fascinating to learn just how science actually proves, not disproves as some believe, the existence of God.
November 23, 2016
Really refreshing to read a writer who clearly loves to laugh and think and poke fun. Andrews has a gift for taking detailed technical jargon and distilling it for public consumption. Chemistry, physics, biology, astronomy, philosophy... pretty much nothing is out-of-bounds. A great read for anyone who loves to think intelligently about big questions.
November 27, 2018
Who made God: Searching for a theory of everything
and What is Man? Adam, alien or ape?
I can safely say that if I wanted to have a really interesting dinner conversation, I would most definitely include Dr. Edgar Andrews on my guest list - a must attend, mind you.
Reading his two books that somehow fit together has afforded me with a good view of his thoughts and his interesting character that make me want to listen to him more, not just to be better informed, but to also be entertained with his brand of humor.
I've always enjoyed the dry, Brit wit and Dr. Andrews takes it to a higher level to include sharp, though careful and courteous as well. The other author that does this for me isn't British. He's an American mathematician living in Paris and the author of one of my other favorite books - the Devil's Delusion - and this is Dr. David Berlinski.
Dr. Berlinski's humor though, is less charitable, yet amusing nonetheless.
The two books by Dr. Andrews have kept me chuckling in public places, causing people to take a look at what I was reading to try and understand why I was so unabashedly tickled by what I was reading. Yet, when asked about the books contents, I get strange looks for laughing at what are serious subjects.
Which is what the two books contain, in the first place.
I always stress to my friends that these books don't contain the conclusive answers to the profound questions that have been asked time and again over generations. But the answers that Dr. Andrews presents makes for the most sensible view, given the data available.
But it's done in such a way that makes for light, friendly reading of the robust arguments - scientific and theological - of these profound subjects.
“Who Made God?” is a compressed textbook on the argument for intelligent design. Without his intending to do so, Dr. Andrews makes the case being presented by a great many author scientists including William Dembski, Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, Guillermo Gonzales and a lot more – PhDs all, and good ones at that. Yet, Dr. Andrews fascinates the reader with his very friendly approach, making the rigorous concepts so much easier to understand – yet provoke you enough to keep thinking long after putting the book down. He also goes beyond basic ID by boldly identifying the designer as the God of the Bible.
I will concede that it requires a bit more than the usual concentration to remain focused and processing all that available information in my mind while reading the book. But having already read the other authors previously, the book refreshes the mind with concepts long since stored away, yet made clearer because of a careful explanation that makes them so much easier to comprehend.
The sum of the matters discussed in “What is Man?” can be distilled into this question – what makes man unique? Following an introductory survey of the issues dealt with in the book, the first two sections deal with scientific theories of human origins that challenge the scriptural narrative, yet fall short of providing a better alternative. When the book gets to the chapter on “The Image of God”, I am delighted to find yet another gem of a discussion of how man is granted the “image and likeness of God”, as I had previously discovered another way of appreciating it in N.T. Wright’s “How God became King”.
Here, Dr. Andrews demonstrates the clear distinctions of Homo sapiens’ superiority over the rest of the animal kingdom and the reasons for it. I particularly point to the part where he says: “ So in seeking to understand what it means that humans bear the image of God, I’m going to consider four duplex attributes, to which I will attach easily remembered names. They are (1) soul and spirit, (2) language and logic,(3) creativity and competence and (4) law and love.”
And he proceeds to elaborate carefully and clearly.
The two books are best described by him as “two well fitting shoes that belong together.” And I most definitely agree. One book addresses the matter of man being the mere “outcome of chance chemistry and random mutation” and the other one addresses the problem of man as “an intelligent and moral being, made in the image and likeness of God”.
To read the two books completes the panoramic view of the entire subject matter that has been brought up in questions since time immemorial. Each one by itself can stand on its own, yet together, they make for a complete and fulfilling read.
Any intelligent lay person would enjoy these books and I highly recommend them as suitable choices for their libraries.
There's really something to be said about PhDs in mathematics and other sciences, writing books on these subjects. These two tomes are a great contribution by an Emeritus Professor in Materials Science, holding PhD and DSc degrees in Physics and having a good grasp of theology and philosophy as well.
I wouldn't know if my other dinner guests in my imagination would enjoy the conversations that could ensue, having Dr. Andrews as one of the participants at my imaginary table, but I know that at the very least, they'd be very provoked into thinking about what they believed in and why.
and What is Man? Adam, alien or ape?
I can safely say that if I wanted to have a really interesting dinner conversation, I would most definitely include Dr. Edgar Andrews on my guest list - a must attend, mind you.
Reading his two books that somehow fit together has afforded me with a good view of his thoughts and his interesting character that make me want to listen to him more, not just to be better informed, but to also be entertained with his brand of humor.
I've always enjoyed the dry, Brit wit and Dr. Andrews takes it to a higher level to include sharp, though careful and courteous as well. The other author that does this for me isn't British. He's an American mathematician living in Paris and the author of one of my other favorite books - the Devil's Delusion - and this is Dr. David Berlinski.
Dr. Berlinski's humor though, is less charitable, yet amusing nonetheless.
The two books by Dr. Andrews have kept me chuckling in public places, causing people to take a look at what I was reading to try and understand why I was so unabashedly tickled by what I was reading. Yet, when asked about the books contents, I get strange looks for laughing at what are serious subjects.
Which is what the two books contain, in the first place.
I always stress to my friends that these books don't contain the conclusive answers to the profound questions that have been asked time and again over generations. But the answers that Dr. Andrews presents makes for the most sensible view, given the data available.
But it's done in such a way that makes for light, friendly reading of the robust arguments - scientific and theological - of these profound subjects.
“Who Made God?” is a compressed textbook on the argument for intelligent design. Without his intending to do so, Dr. Andrews makes the case being presented by a great many author scientists including William Dembski, Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, Guillermo Gonzales and a lot more – PhDs all, and good ones at that. Yet, Dr. Andrews fascinates the reader with his very friendly approach, making the rigorous concepts so much easier to understand – yet provoke you enough to keep thinking long after putting the book down. He also goes beyond basic ID by boldly identifying the designer as the God of the Bible.
I will concede that it requires a bit more than the usual concentration to remain focused and processing all that available information in my mind while reading the book. But having already read the other authors previously, the book refreshes the mind with concepts long since stored away, yet made clearer because of a careful explanation that makes them so much easier to comprehend.
The sum of the matters discussed in “What is Man?” can be distilled into this question – what makes man unique? Following an introductory survey of the issues dealt with in the book, the first two sections deal with scientific theories of human origins that challenge the scriptural narrative, yet fall short of providing a better alternative. When the book gets to the chapter on “The Image of God”, I am delighted to find yet another gem of a discussion of how man is granted the “image and likeness of God”, as I had previously discovered another way of appreciating it in N.T. Wright’s “How God became King”.
Here, Dr. Andrews demonstrates the clear distinctions of Homo sapiens’ superiority over the rest of the animal kingdom and the reasons for it. I particularly point to the part where he says: “ So in seeking to understand what it means that humans bear the image of God, I’m going to consider four duplex attributes, to which I will attach easily remembered names. They are (1) soul and spirit, (2) language and logic,(3) creativity and competence and (4) law and love.”
And he proceeds to elaborate carefully and clearly.
The two books are best described by him as “two well fitting shoes that belong together.” And I most definitely agree. One book addresses the matter of man being the mere “outcome of chance chemistry and random mutation” and the other one addresses the problem of man as “an intelligent and moral being, made in the image and likeness of God”.
To read the two books completes the panoramic view of the entire subject matter that has been brought up in questions since time immemorial. Each one by itself can stand on its own, yet together, they make for a complete and fulfilling read.
Any intelligent lay person would enjoy these books and I highly recommend them as suitable choices for their libraries.
There's really something to be said about PhDs in mathematics and other sciences, writing books on these subjects. These two tomes are a great contribution by an Emeritus Professor in Materials Science, holding PhD and DSc degrees in Physics and having a good grasp of theology and philosophy as well.
I wouldn't know if my other dinner guests in my imagination would enjoy the conversations that could ensue, having Dr. Andrews as one of the participants at my imaginary table, but I know that at the very least, they'd be very provoked into thinking about what they believed in and why.
November 29, 2016
A layman science book with British dry humor.
July 16, 2018
I read this several years ago, and it was probably the first book I read on Christian apologetics. I need to read it again.
September 15, 2019
Dr Andrews has written a thorough and compelling apologetic, in which he sets out to "explore how the biblical hypothesis of God provides a comprehensible, intellectually consistent and spiritually satisfying view of being that encompasses man's experience of life, the universe and everything,." This is a novel approach, and the result is a consistently engaging and stimulating book in which complex concepts are explained and analysed in an accessible (and even entertaining) manner, without being compromised or dumbed-down. The hypothesis of God is compared to the atheistic / materialistic explanations for these phenomena.
The central point of the book is to make the reader consider whether the atheistic or the theistic explanation best explains the data. The following points summarise my main takeaways:
- The atheist / materialist does not have a monopoly on rational and evidence-based answers to questions about the cosmos, humanity, and the nature of reality. In fact, the evidence seems to lean more towards a theistic, even Christian, explanation of these things. At the very least, we all bring pre-suppositions to the party and these fundamentally shape how we interpret the evidence. Recognising this allows those with different worldviews to be increasingly objective (but not neutral) and to have a civil and mutually beneficial dialogue.
- The nature and limitations of science. Science consists in the search of the rules of "cosmic chess", in other words the discovery of the laws of nature. However, science cannot explain the laws of nature themselves, as to do so it would have to explain them in terms of some more fundamental principle, which lies outside the scope of science. In short, science describes but does not ultimately explain anything.
- The distinction between the laws of nature (which constitute unchanging reality) and the laws of science (our frequently imperfect attempts to describe reality). The failure to distinguish between the laws of nature and the laws of science lies behind the superiority that atheists often claim for science over theology. Both science and theology are open to revision and change, but the revealed realities concerning God are no more fallible or subject to change than the underlying laws of nature, that science seeks to uncover and understand.
Andrews begins his book by addressing the supposedly unanswerable question, 'If God made everything, who made God?' He points out that this is only unanswerable until we define exactly what we mean by 'God.' At that point, the Christian contention is that we can certainly answer the question as God has revealed himself in the Scriptures and, ultimately, in the person of his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. Along the way, he points out some of the difficulties and inconsistencies with the three related contentions that 'we made God', or that he is an invention of the human mind, that God is so complex that he is too improbable to exist, and that God must have a cause as everything else does.
The contention that we made God is particularly problematic, for three reasons. First, it is subject to the very same question as that posed, i.e. if we made God, who made us? The question of causes remains unaddressed. Secondly, this contention is devoid of any evidential basis and, like many atheistic arguments, is really a tautology. It does nothing to explain the substantial phenomenon of religious belief. Thirdly, there are ontological problems as we are effectively saying that the creation (God) is greater than the creator (us). He also introduces two important concepts, probability (and makes the helpful distinction between what is mathematically possible and what is physically possible) and thermodynamics (disordered states of matter arise spontaneously and ordered states do not).
Next, he challenges the common but mistaken idea that science explains (or someday will explain) everything, leaving no room for God to take responsibility for the universe and the way it works. One problem with this idea is that science provides descriptions, and does not actually explain anything. A second problem is that as science probes deeper into the nature of reality, the models and concepts it uses to explain them become more non-intuitive and more difficult to demonstrate or prove experimentally. He summarises these points helpfully as follows, "It is not unreasonable to say that the sole purpose of scientific research is to discover principles or theories that unify human experience. This is extremely valuable because it not only helps to satisfy our curiosity about the world we live in but represents knowledge that can be applied for our benefit…. But although scientific theories advance our understanding of the way things work in the universe, they seldom, if ever, trace our experiences and observations back to a priori concepts that need no further explanation. Indeed, in their search for unification they often lead us into profound and inexplicable mysteries."
Andrews then starts to lay the foundation of "the hypothesis of God". Hypotheses are the basis for theory building, proposing a foundational idea and then testing whether its predictions correspond to reality. Interestingly, he sees the God hypothesis as the approach taken by scripture itself as Genesis begins with the existence of God as a premise from which everything else proceeds. Similarly, the hypothesis of God proposes that God exists and is in fact the God of the Bible. This definition necessarily introduces the concepts of eternity, creation and revelation. He spends the rest of the book exploring where this hypothesis leads as he considers the cosmos, life, and ourselves. Atheist attempts to dismiss the hypothesis of God are also shown to be without merit, involving faulty reasoning and tendentious interpretations of logic, before eventually vanishing into the black hole of their own logic. He also considers some common misconceptions about God, including the 'God of the gaps', the complementary God, the 'don't blame me' God, the absent-landlord God and the lowest-common denominator God.
Science, by its very nature, is concerned with purely material causes so there are many thing it will never be able to explain. These include the origin of the universe, the origin of the laws of nature, the origin of life, and the origin of life and thought. Not least among these is the subject of cosmic creation and the origins of the universe. All the available evidence implies that the material has not always existed, but that it had a real beginning. The only theory based on experimental evidence, as opposed to mathematical and philosophical speculation, is some kind of 'hot big bang.' Again, the evidence points to an origin in which space, time, matter and energy came into being ex nihilo (out of nothing), just as the hypothesis of God predicts. Thus, current scientific cosmologies imply the existence of a non-physical realm that transcends space and time, and within which the physical universe was created.
Time is also an interesting concept to consider in relation to the hypothesis of God. The scientific view of time has its foundations in entropy and the second law of thermodynamics. Unlike space, time allows us to go in only one direction. This is the direction of increasing randomness, and this has profound implications for the origin and fate of the physical universe. It means that time must have both a beginning and an end, and that all time (past, present and future) still exists. This implies the necessary existence of eternity.
Next, Andrews considers the concept of law. The universality of law is self-evident, and God's hand as the lawgiver is seen in every aspect of human society and experience, not just those areas accessible to science. Rules and laws permeate human social behaviour at all levels, not only defining what kind of society exists but also defining the very existence of society. Our consciences also distinguish right from wrong, and should prompt us to ask both why this is so ubiquitous and who makes the rules. Scripture makes clear that all law (natural, moral and human) are divinely imposed, while an evolutionary origin of law doesn't stand up well to scrutiny as it represents another tautology. Furthermore, the evolutionary survival value of law to a society is pragmatically of a low order and certainly not strong enough to explain societal law as the result of evolution. Similarly, the most robust and consistent explanation for the origin and nature of the laws of nature is the hypothesis of God. One of the most compelling points under the heading of the laws of nature is the fact, considering that mathematics is entirely a construct of the human mind, that the structure of the cosmos is fundamentally mathematical. Why should conscious thought connect us so perfectly with the physical structure of the universe?
The common materialistic/atheistic notion that anything, even the most improbable natural events, will inevitably happen given enough time is examined and critiqued. This is the only way to account naturalistically for the origin of life, but is seen to be scientifically vacuous. It again highlights the fact that mathematical probabilities bear no necessary relation to physical possibilities. Before mathematical probabilities can be applied to the real world, they have to be passed through the twin filters of logic and physical reality. The biblical hypothesis of God, on the other hand, provides us with an altogether more rational and integrated view of providence, miracles and the meaning of life and doesn't imprison God within the confines of natural law.
Information theory is another important consideration, given the structure and function of DNA, RNA and proteins. The fantastically complex processes of storage, transcription and translation that take place within every living cell closely mimic an advanced human language, involving codes, syntax and semantics. This is present in all living systems, without it, no life would be possible. It follows that the essence of life resides not in chemistry but in information and communication, which are things that can only be the product of intelligence, not chance. Again, this is expected from the hypothesis of God. In scripture, God is both the source of all life, and speaks (uses language) both to create and to sustain the material universe.
Darwinian evolution and natural selection are scrutinised next, and are shown to be problematic as vehicles for increasing biological complexity. Natural selection is severely limited as an agent for biological change, as it tends to eliminate variations and not multiply them, as evolution requires. Proposed explanations such as geographical isolation, "biological arms races" and genetic mutation, do not stack up. Furthermore, natural selection has no creative power, and results in the loss of genetic material. Again, the proposed solution (random genetic mutations) also does not work, as there is no evidence that this actually happens. On the contrary, the evidence we do have from genetic mutation points to genome degradation rather than upward evolution. The hypothesis of God provides a much more consistent explanation for mutation in the twin concepts of the perfect nature of original creation and the fall of man.
One of the most compelling arguments against macro-evolution is related to falsification. Species in the same environment are radically different (why do giraffes have long necks rather than trunks), and mutually exclusive biological features are both declared to have survival value. Evolution can always contrive answers to these kinds of questions so can never be falsified, but falsification is essential for any truly scientific theory. I would strongly suggest that macroevolution is more philosophical presupposition than it is scientific fact.
"What is man?" is the final question to be addressed, significant as man is the only species to possess mind (the capacity for thought and self-knowledge) and morality (an innate sense of conscience, right and wrong). The atheistic explanation falls into an epistemological abyss, as if mind is nothing more than the inconsequential by-product of electrical activity in the brain then all thought is meaningless. Contrary to the idea that all human behaviour results from genetic predestination, the mind "rides" on the physical organ of the brain in much the same way as the genetic code "rides" on the chemical structure of DNA. The former (monism) sees self-consciousness as like the shadow of a horse that moves along with the animal; the latter (dualism) sees consciousness as the rider of the horse. Unlike the shadow, the rider is both real and in control. An intimately linked concept is morality which, like mind, is unique to man. Atheisms attempts to explain both conscience and morality self-destruct in contradictions as consistent atheism must deny the very existence of morality and reduce all human behaviour to the machinations of selfish genes. The atheistic / materialistic worldview implies that morality is nothing more than an illusion. The hypothesis of God, on the other hand, presents a definite source for morality, and explains both fundamental human nature and the true path of redemption. Redemption is only possible through rebirth by God's grace and the atoning work of Jesus Christ.
Ultimately, I do not think Dr Andrews's book will change anyone's mind on these things, as atheists will simply dismiss it (due to their presuppositions). For Christians like myself, it is edifying to be reminded that what I believe is not naive, nor based on blind faith, but is robustly consistent with the very nature of reality. It is also valuable to be encouraged to pursue rational and objective discussion of these matters, even with those who disagree with my underlying worldview.
The central point of the book is to make the reader consider whether the atheistic or the theistic explanation best explains the data. The following points summarise my main takeaways:
- The atheist / materialist does not have a monopoly on rational and evidence-based answers to questions about the cosmos, humanity, and the nature of reality. In fact, the evidence seems to lean more towards a theistic, even Christian, explanation of these things. At the very least, we all bring pre-suppositions to the party and these fundamentally shape how we interpret the evidence. Recognising this allows those with different worldviews to be increasingly objective (but not neutral) and to have a civil and mutually beneficial dialogue.
- The nature and limitations of science. Science consists in the search of the rules of "cosmic chess", in other words the discovery of the laws of nature. However, science cannot explain the laws of nature themselves, as to do so it would have to explain them in terms of some more fundamental principle, which lies outside the scope of science. In short, science describes but does not ultimately explain anything.
- The distinction between the laws of nature (which constitute unchanging reality) and the laws of science (our frequently imperfect attempts to describe reality). The failure to distinguish between the laws of nature and the laws of science lies behind the superiority that atheists often claim for science over theology. Both science and theology are open to revision and change, but the revealed realities concerning God are no more fallible or subject to change than the underlying laws of nature, that science seeks to uncover and understand.
Andrews begins his book by addressing the supposedly unanswerable question, 'If God made everything, who made God?' He points out that this is only unanswerable until we define exactly what we mean by 'God.' At that point, the Christian contention is that we can certainly answer the question as God has revealed himself in the Scriptures and, ultimately, in the person of his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. Along the way, he points out some of the difficulties and inconsistencies with the three related contentions that 'we made God', or that he is an invention of the human mind, that God is so complex that he is too improbable to exist, and that God must have a cause as everything else does.
The contention that we made God is particularly problematic, for three reasons. First, it is subject to the very same question as that posed, i.e. if we made God, who made us? The question of causes remains unaddressed. Secondly, this contention is devoid of any evidential basis and, like many atheistic arguments, is really a tautology. It does nothing to explain the substantial phenomenon of religious belief. Thirdly, there are ontological problems as we are effectively saying that the creation (God) is greater than the creator (us). He also introduces two important concepts, probability (and makes the helpful distinction between what is mathematically possible and what is physically possible) and thermodynamics (disordered states of matter arise spontaneously and ordered states do not).
Next, he challenges the common but mistaken idea that science explains (or someday will explain) everything, leaving no room for God to take responsibility for the universe and the way it works. One problem with this idea is that science provides descriptions, and does not actually explain anything. A second problem is that as science probes deeper into the nature of reality, the models and concepts it uses to explain them become more non-intuitive and more difficult to demonstrate or prove experimentally. He summarises these points helpfully as follows, "It is not unreasonable to say that the sole purpose of scientific research is to discover principles or theories that unify human experience. This is extremely valuable because it not only helps to satisfy our curiosity about the world we live in but represents knowledge that can be applied for our benefit…. But although scientific theories advance our understanding of the way things work in the universe, they seldom, if ever, trace our experiences and observations back to a priori concepts that need no further explanation. Indeed, in their search for unification they often lead us into profound and inexplicable mysteries."
Andrews then starts to lay the foundation of "the hypothesis of God". Hypotheses are the basis for theory building, proposing a foundational idea and then testing whether its predictions correspond to reality. Interestingly, he sees the God hypothesis as the approach taken by scripture itself as Genesis begins with the existence of God as a premise from which everything else proceeds. Similarly, the hypothesis of God proposes that God exists and is in fact the God of the Bible. This definition necessarily introduces the concepts of eternity, creation and revelation. He spends the rest of the book exploring where this hypothesis leads as he considers the cosmos, life, and ourselves. Atheist attempts to dismiss the hypothesis of God are also shown to be without merit, involving faulty reasoning and tendentious interpretations of logic, before eventually vanishing into the black hole of their own logic. He also considers some common misconceptions about God, including the 'God of the gaps', the complementary God, the 'don't blame me' God, the absent-landlord God and the lowest-common denominator God.
Science, by its very nature, is concerned with purely material causes so there are many thing it will never be able to explain. These include the origin of the universe, the origin of the laws of nature, the origin of life, and the origin of life and thought. Not least among these is the subject of cosmic creation and the origins of the universe. All the available evidence implies that the material has not always existed, but that it had a real beginning. The only theory based on experimental evidence, as opposed to mathematical and philosophical speculation, is some kind of 'hot big bang.' Again, the evidence points to an origin in which space, time, matter and energy came into being ex nihilo (out of nothing), just as the hypothesis of God predicts. Thus, current scientific cosmologies imply the existence of a non-physical realm that transcends space and time, and within which the physical universe was created.
Time is also an interesting concept to consider in relation to the hypothesis of God. The scientific view of time has its foundations in entropy and the second law of thermodynamics. Unlike space, time allows us to go in only one direction. This is the direction of increasing randomness, and this has profound implications for the origin and fate of the physical universe. It means that time must have both a beginning and an end, and that all time (past, present and future) still exists. This implies the necessary existence of eternity.
Next, Andrews considers the concept of law. The universality of law is self-evident, and God's hand as the lawgiver is seen in every aspect of human society and experience, not just those areas accessible to science. Rules and laws permeate human social behaviour at all levels, not only defining what kind of society exists but also defining the very existence of society. Our consciences also distinguish right from wrong, and should prompt us to ask both why this is so ubiquitous and who makes the rules. Scripture makes clear that all law (natural, moral and human) are divinely imposed, while an evolutionary origin of law doesn't stand up well to scrutiny as it represents another tautology. Furthermore, the evolutionary survival value of law to a society is pragmatically of a low order and certainly not strong enough to explain societal law as the result of evolution. Similarly, the most robust and consistent explanation for the origin and nature of the laws of nature is the hypothesis of God. One of the most compelling points under the heading of the laws of nature is the fact, considering that mathematics is entirely a construct of the human mind, that the structure of the cosmos is fundamentally mathematical. Why should conscious thought connect us so perfectly with the physical structure of the universe?
The common materialistic/atheistic notion that anything, even the most improbable natural events, will inevitably happen given enough time is examined and critiqued. This is the only way to account naturalistically for the origin of life, but is seen to be scientifically vacuous. It again highlights the fact that mathematical probabilities bear no necessary relation to physical possibilities. Before mathematical probabilities can be applied to the real world, they have to be passed through the twin filters of logic and physical reality. The biblical hypothesis of God, on the other hand, provides us with an altogether more rational and integrated view of providence, miracles and the meaning of life and doesn't imprison God within the confines of natural law.
Information theory is another important consideration, given the structure and function of DNA, RNA and proteins. The fantastically complex processes of storage, transcription and translation that take place within every living cell closely mimic an advanced human language, involving codes, syntax and semantics. This is present in all living systems, without it, no life would be possible. It follows that the essence of life resides not in chemistry but in information and communication, which are things that can only be the product of intelligence, not chance. Again, this is expected from the hypothesis of God. In scripture, God is both the source of all life, and speaks (uses language) both to create and to sustain the material universe.
Darwinian evolution and natural selection are scrutinised next, and are shown to be problematic as vehicles for increasing biological complexity. Natural selection is severely limited as an agent for biological change, as it tends to eliminate variations and not multiply them, as evolution requires. Proposed explanations such as geographical isolation, "biological arms races" and genetic mutation, do not stack up. Furthermore, natural selection has no creative power, and results in the loss of genetic material. Again, the proposed solution (random genetic mutations) also does not work, as there is no evidence that this actually happens. On the contrary, the evidence we do have from genetic mutation points to genome degradation rather than upward evolution. The hypothesis of God provides a much more consistent explanation for mutation in the twin concepts of the perfect nature of original creation and the fall of man.
One of the most compelling arguments against macro-evolution is related to falsification. Species in the same environment are radically different (why do giraffes have long necks rather than trunks), and mutually exclusive biological features are both declared to have survival value. Evolution can always contrive answers to these kinds of questions so can never be falsified, but falsification is essential for any truly scientific theory. I would strongly suggest that macroevolution is more philosophical presupposition than it is scientific fact.
"What is man?" is the final question to be addressed, significant as man is the only species to possess mind (the capacity for thought and self-knowledge) and morality (an innate sense of conscience, right and wrong). The atheistic explanation falls into an epistemological abyss, as if mind is nothing more than the inconsequential by-product of electrical activity in the brain then all thought is meaningless. Contrary to the idea that all human behaviour results from genetic predestination, the mind "rides" on the physical organ of the brain in much the same way as the genetic code "rides" on the chemical structure of DNA. The former (monism) sees self-consciousness as like the shadow of a horse that moves along with the animal; the latter (dualism) sees consciousness as the rider of the horse. Unlike the shadow, the rider is both real and in control. An intimately linked concept is morality which, like mind, is unique to man. Atheisms attempts to explain both conscience and morality self-destruct in contradictions as consistent atheism must deny the very existence of morality and reduce all human behaviour to the machinations of selfish genes. The atheistic / materialistic worldview implies that morality is nothing more than an illusion. The hypothesis of God, on the other hand, presents a definite source for morality, and explains both fundamental human nature and the true path of redemption. Redemption is only possible through rebirth by God's grace and the atoning work of Jesus Christ.
Ultimately, I do not think Dr Andrews's book will change anyone's mind on these things, as atheists will simply dismiss it (due to their presuppositions). For Christians like myself, it is edifying to be reminded that what I believe is not naive, nor based on blind faith, but is robustly consistent with the very nature of reality. It is also valuable to be encouraged to pursue rational and objective discussion of these matters, even with those who disagree with my underlying worldview.
August 18, 2017
As a convinced heathen I didn't read this book looking to be persuaded otherwise (although I'm open to any impressive arguments, and still waiting) but I was genuinely interested to see what approach a highly regarded physicist and believer (an understandably rare combination) would take on this subject.
His argumentation and logic are generally tenuous, contrived and flawed. He often resorts to straw man arguments, cherry-picking quotes that don't represent those of the scientific community, putting words into people's mouths and then patting himself on the back for his own hasty conclusion, all within a few short paragraphs. All evolutionists *must* be monists, all monists *must* think thought is meaningless (whatever that means), so evolution must be wrong! There is nothing scientific about his arguments, even though he presents them as such.
So why two stars instead of one? For all its flaws, the book is well written, very accessible and in a tongue-in-cheek (albeit self-righteous) tone. He deliberately uses complex terms, kindly providing their definitions at the beginning of each chapter along with a chapter summary. This is patronising to the reader at best, but it adds to his air of authoritativeness on the subject. He knows exactly how to handle his readership in the same way the Daily Mail knows what its followers want to read, and he does it well. Credit where it's due!
This book will be validating to any existing believers (albeit for the wrong reasons) but don't count on it to convert anyone.
His argumentation and logic are generally tenuous, contrived and flawed. He often resorts to straw man arguments, cherry-picking quotes that don't represent those of the scientific community, putting words into people's mouths and then patting himself on the back for his own hasty conclusion, all within a few short paragraphs. All evolutionists *must* be monists, all monists *must* think thought is meaningless (whatever that means), so evolution must be wrong! There is nothing scientific about his arguments, even though he presents them as such.
So why two stars instead of one? For all its flaws, the book is well written, very accessible and in a tongue-in-cheek (albeit self-righteous) tone. He deliberately uses complex terms, kindly providing their definitions at the beginning of each chapter along with a chapter summary. This is patronising to the reader at best, but it adds to his air of authoritativeness on the subject. He knows exactly how to handle his readership in the same way the Daily Mail knows what its followers want to read, and he does it well. Credit where it's due!
This book will be validating to any existing believers (albeit for the wrong reasons) but don't count on it to convert anyone.
September 15, 2020
I don't know what I can add to many of the excellent reviews of this book. As a so-called "creationist", someone who believes the Genesis narrative of God's actions to create all of the universe's physics in the bible, I think that this book is an excellent reference for any creationist who has not yet studied the Creation from a scientific or technical perspective.
I became a convert to creationism around twenty five years ago, after nearly forty years of accepting the "science" of Natural Selection/Synthesis/Darwinism that was taught to me as fact. As a life-long Christian, raised as a Roman Catholic, and eventually leaving that denomination so absorbed with the veneration of "The Queen of Heaven", I became an non-denominational, "Evangelical", as modern society would call me. Having read extensively on astronomy and geology, but mostly on microbiology and in particular, genetics, I am utterly persuaded of the truth of creation and the fraud of natural selection and its total failure to explain existence, regardless of its reliance on numberless rescue theories. This book simply provides a concise summary of many of the facts that I learned which support the certainty that we live on a young Earth in a young universe.
As the author says, if you think that the title is a sceptical question, and that the contents are meant to bolster disbelief, then this is not the book for you - and you may well resent that it is exactly the opposite.
I became a convert to creationism around twenty five years ago, after nearly forty years of accepting the "science" of Natural Selection/Synthesis/Darwinism that was taught to me as fact. As a life-long Christian, raised as a Roman Catholic, and eventually leaving that denomination so absorbed with the veneration of "The Queen of Heaven", I became an non-denominational, "Evangelical", as modern society would call me. Having read extensively on astronomy and geology, but mostly on microbiology and in particular, genetics, I am utterly persuaded of the truth of creation and the fraud of natural selection and its total failure to explain existence, regardless of its reliance on numberless rescue theories. This book simply provides a concise summary of many of the facts that I learned which support the certainty that we live on a young Earth in a young universe.
As the author says, if you think that the title is a sceptical question, and that the contents are meant to bolster disbelief, then this is not the book for you - and you may well resent that it is exactly the opposite.
October 25, 2018
Good book which gives a well thought through ctiricism on the new atheism and the evolutionists. Thinking on how presumptions enter in your reasoning to so called proof is dangerous. I think dr Andrews is sharp on the atheist assumptions. On the other hand he is also clear that there is also a hypothesis on the existence of God and he makes clear why he thinks that hypothesis is likely to be true. Especially the remarks on the probability that is used often in evolutionary considerations combined with the thermodynamics is strong for me and the impossibibilty to prove the evolution is a weak point of that theory. Evolution may well happen but is not proven to explain all life developments and also the very existence of life and the existence of the universe open. It is amazing that so many people tend to believe a theory which is not proven to be true. The only critical point I have is the conclusion that God is the Christian God is more far fetched.
November 22, 2021
Many times when I read a Christian response to atheism, the author has a knee-jerk reaction that atheism must be false and they then proceed to present a weak defense of the theist position. That is not the case in this particular book. The author (Edgar Andrews) seems to have extensively studied the relevant science and makes a detailed response to many atheist objections. To me, his strongest argument was the immense complexity of the DNA and RNA necessary to make a single cell organism or jellypod as the author calls it. The author seems to have read Dawkin's arguments. He also frequently refers to Francis Collins's book on the Language of God (which is also a good read). My only objection with this book is that I was not always able to follow the author's train of thought in some of the chapters. I'm not a professional scientist so I don't know if the arguments were just too complex or if the problematic section was just not clearly worded.
January 12, 2023
I was really conflicted when rating this book because it does a great job of explaining scientific theories in an easy and understandable way but, at the same time, it's really hard to use science and the Bible side by side. The author will discuss quantum mechanics and then quote a passage of the Bible to make a point but the Bible isn't a science book so using it doesn't really help an argument if someone doesn't believe in the Bible to be true. Andrews does a great job of exploring the God Hypothesis and that's where this book succeeds, but, other than that, Andrews seems to scientifically explain everything that even atheists also believe about the universe but says it with a biblical twist. Informative book but not one I would use to defend the Christian faith.
May 22, 2019
Best of its kind
I’ve read many books by both atheists and Christians arguing against and for the existence of God. What Edgar Andrews does in this book is unique, at least as far as I’ve encountered. He almost treats the subject as a science fair project. He first proposes a hypothesis: the God of the Bible exists. He then examines several aspects of science and humanity to see if they line up with that hypothesis. So, rather than trying to lay out a logical ‘proof’ of God’s existence, he takes the scientific approach of examining evidence based on a hypothesis. Extremely well done.
I’ve read many books by both atheists and Christians arguing against and for the existence of God. What Edgar Andrews does in this book is unique, at least as far as I’ve encountered. He almost treats the subject as a science fair project. He first proposes a hypothesis: the God of the Bible exists. He then examines several aspects of science and humanity to see if they line up with that hypothesis. So, rather than trying to lay out a logical ‘proof’ of God’s existence, he takes the scientific approach of examining evidence based on a hypothesis. Extremely well done.
May 21, 2017
Who made you?
This book sets out a convincing response to the question of human origins on the basis that the answer is found in understanding God. It stands up to evolution by offering an alternative hypothesis and then proceeds to establish that hypothesis. It's well done. At times the microscopic detail is demanding but working through it brings the reader to firm ground.
This book sets out a convincing response to the question of human origins on the basis that the answer is found in understanding God. It stands up to evolution by offering an alternative hypothesis and then proceeds to establish that hypothesis. It's well done. At times the microscopic detail is demanding but working through it brings the reader to firm ground.
December 9, 2020
As a writer and publisher, I find this book well written, compelling and closely argued. I consider that Andrews has satisfactorily answered the question 'who made God' - and many other questions, to boot! So I give it 5*.
January 21, 2024
Andrews has a knack for approachable explanations and I appreciate the witty, yet skillful way he lays out “the hypothesis of God”. It was a slow read for me, but I’m glad that I chose to work my way through this compelling argument.
February 4, 2019
Love the way he makes Science so very readable!
February 25, 2019
Good topic. And a good contribution to our thinking.
October 19, 2020
Meaty. I tried too hard to read slowly. I read one chapter, set it aside, let it get piled under other books, find it, read one chapter...repeat.
January 1, 2022
A fine apologetic work. The author makes a strong case for the God Hypothesis as the best explanation of the world as we know it.
August 5, 2019
Deceivingly logical. Good in the sense that it made me think. To not take evolution for granted. To acknowledge the mysteries of the origin of the universe and of life.
The consciousness of man.
But the wrapping in a christian bible god explanation makes the book at the very least questionable.
He seems to have points where he argues about the first cause and about the origin of life. That is a mystery. I agree. And the God hypothesis is very plausible there.
Evolution I’m not sure. Same with morality. Mainly because, as a non-biologists, he hides behind long discussions about DNA and the reproduction of life. Giving this book a pseudo scientific flavor.
But when he starts quoting the bible as his main basis to explain everything he looses credibility for me.
The first cause is indeed a mystery. Introducing a god like concept makes sense. But that does not necessarily mean the christian God from the bible.
I think that is the weakness of this book that explanations are based upon bible texts.
Obviously Andrews struggles with his scientific background and his God believe.
After reading renowned atheists Dawkins, Dennett and Kraus it was now time to explore the other side.
Andrews view on the beginning of the universe:
He quotes Genesis to make his point.
The hypothesis of Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. On this foundational assumption is built all that follows in the bible.
Progressive revelation.
All the knowledge comes to us via revelation.
In this case the revelation (via the bible) that God created the universe.
True, science does not explain the first cause, but this comes close to the God of gaps.
Andrews view on evolution:
Only functional systems can be modified by natural selection. So he does not think evolution exist.
Natural selection can only select what is present. It can never create what is absent.
Neither can mutation
What creationist deny is not the occurance of mutations and natural selection, nor their ability to generate change, but the absolute power of such mindless, haphazard processes to manufacture the teeming life of planet earth starting from some primeval soup or elementary spark of life. I agree that it does seem impossible.
(how can a cabbage grow legs)
Puzzling when he argues that mutation is caused by the fall of man in the garden of eden. He calls this genetic devolution. So he argues on that current modern descendants possess depleted and labile genomes.
What does he mean with that?
Andrews view on the origin of life:
Scientific impossible to have arisen by chance. Dependant upon information and communication, not chemistry.
Andrews on the origin of conscience:
Humans have an instinctive knowledge of good and evil. Gazzaniga et al saw this too.
Andrews, predictably, gives the origin to God.
All laws, in nature, society or human conscience, derives from a single divine lawgiver. Evolution plays no role in it.
God created everything, and according to the bible “it was good”. All the cruelty and misery is human’s fault. Even if they also were created by God
Andrews on science:
Where do the natural laws come from?
Science searches for the laws of nature, they cannot explain them. I see his point here.
However he is rather dismissive when discussing science, especially quantum mechanics, he concludes: So quantum mechanics leaves more questions than answers: “unbelievable oddities”. “Science explanations leave us staring into an incomprehensible abyss.”
Andrews keeps on using the argument of counter-intuitive and common sense to not believe in quantum mechanics and string theory.
Andrews states miracles do happen by the power of God. Rarely and for a specific purpose. The divine will is immanent in nature. God ordains and maintains the laws of nature through moment-by-moment action of his mind and will. Plus he employs these laws providentially to bring about his purpose in the material world.
A man struggling with his scientific background and his (christian) God believe. The further in the book the more arguments are based upon the bible and logic comes from bible verses. How can you argue against that?
The consciousness of man.
But the wrapping in a christian bible god explanation makes the book at the very least questionable.
He seems to have points where he argues about the first cause and about the origin of life. That is a mystery. I agree. And the God hypothesis is very plausible there.
Evolution I’m not sure. Same with morality. Mainly because, as a non-biologists, he hides behind long discussions about DNA and the reproduction of life. Giving this book a pseudo scientific flavor.
But when he starts quoting the bible as his main basis to explain everything he looses credibility for me.
The first cause is indeed a mystery. Introducing a god like concept makes sense. But that does not necessarily mean the christian God from the bible.
I think that is the weakness of this book that explanations are based upon bible texts.
Obviously Andrews struggles with his scientific background and his God believe.
After reading renowned atheists Dawkins, Dennett and Kraus it was now time to explore the other side.
Andrews view on the beginning of the universe:
He quotes Genesis to make his point.
The hypothesis of Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. On this foundational assumption is built all that follows in the bible.
Progressive revelation.
All the knowledge comes to us via revelation.
In this case the revelation (via the bible) that God created the universe.
True, science does not explain the first cause, but this comes close to the God of gaps.
Andrews view on evolution:
Only functional systems can be modified by natural selection. So he does not think evolution exist.
Natural selection can only select what is present. It can never create what is absent.
Neither can mutation
What creationist deny is not the occurance of mutations and natural selection, nor their ability to generate change, but the absolute power of such mindless, haphazard processes to manufacture the teeming life of planet earth starting from some primeval soup or elementary spark of life. I agree that it does seem impossible.
(how can a cabbage grow legs)
Puzzling when he argues that mutation is caused by the fall of man in the garden of eden. He calls this genetic devolution. So he argues on that current modern descendants possess depleted and labile genomes.
What does he mean with that?
Andrews view on the origin of life:
Scientific impossible to have arisen by chance. Dependant upon information and communication, not chemistry.
Andrews on the origin of conscience:
Humans have an instinctive knowledge of good and evil. Gazzaniga et al saw this too.
Andrews, predictably, gives the origin to God.
All laws, in nature, society or human conscience, derives from a single divine lawgiver. Evolution plays no role in it.
God created everything, and according to the bible “it was good”. All the cruelty and misery is human’s fault. Even if they also were created by God
Andrews on science:
Where do the natural laws come from?
Science searches for the laws of nature, they cannot explain them. I see his point here.
However he is rather dismissive when discussing science, especially quantum mechanics, he concludes: So quantum mechanics leaves more questions than answers: “unbelievable oddities”. “Science explanations leave us staring into an incomprehensible abyss.”
Andrews keeps on using the argument of counter-intuitive and common sense to not believe in quantum mechanics and string theory.
Andrews states miracles do happen by the power of God. Rarely and for a specific purpose. The divine will is immanent in nature. God ordains and maintains the laws of nature through moment-by-moment action of his mind and will. Plus he employs these laws providentially to bring about his purpose in the material world.
A man struggling with his scientific background and his (christian) God believe. The further in the book the more arguments are based upon the bible and logic comes from bible verses. How can you argue against that?
October 23, 2010
Who Made God? is wonderful. Dr. Edgar Andrews is intelligent and knowledgeable enough to discuss a wide variety of scientific disciplines. You may be reading about quantum physics in one chapter and biology or genetics in another. It is to these disciplines and more that Andrews applies the hypothesis of God. If the God of the Bible existed, would we expect to see what we observe in nature and experience in human living? Andrews' conclusion is yes, and his reasoning is sound. Dr. Andrews' credentials are superb, but he is not only smart, he is funny too, and his witty and engaging style makes the technical and scientific content go down like a spoonful of sugar. Dr. Andrews interacts with atheistic works and with good sportsmanship pointedly exposes their logical flaws. This book should appeal to nerds while still being quite accessible to almost everybody. For someone like me, who enjoyed A Brief History of Time, Who Made God? is hard to put down.
March 25, 2010
Mr. Andrews deals through-out the book with many of the positions of the hostile atheistic squad out there today. I struggled a bit following some of the arguments because its not my best nor favorite subject but it was still quite informative and what I did follow was very good, but the thing that struck me was the seriousness of his position, a certain non fundamentalist sanity pervaded his reasoning, he is passionate about the Christian position but he doesn't just gloss over good arguments from the scientific community, he deals with them and unaffectedly offers a reasonable defense of the hypothesis of God.
Many arguments will be familiar to seasoned Christians who follow science, because I don't I found that I needed to get a good dictionary and go back over the arguments to fully understand them.
Highly recommended for junior/senior in highschool and on up!
Many arguments will be familiar to seasoned Christians who follow science, because I don't I found that I needed to get a good dictionary and go back over the arguments to fully understand them.
Highly recommended for junior/senior in highschool and on up!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 48 reviews