Customer Reviews

Who Made God? Searching for a Theory of Everything

5 star:		(21)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This is a really amazing little book.

I was expecting an apology for Christianity, however that is not what I got. Certainly the book makes no bones about Christianity, and it clearly and concisely repudiates (in places with gentle humor at their flawed reasoning) the so-called new atheists. However, that is not its purpose. It might almost be described as an expose, rather than a defense.

What it does is to offer overtly something that I have heard discussed quietly (and usually behind closed doors) by a number of noted scientists. It provides a concise, understandable explanation of modern science from a Christian perspective. Through the fundamental hypothesis of the book, it clearly reconciles modern science and Christianity. It also proves that, contrary to the dogma of Dawkins and company, the more scientist learn about the physical universe and about life, the more unavoidable the conclusion that God exists becomes.

I expect that Dawkins and company will ignore this book, or possibly address it with the kind of rage and bombast that characterized recent books by the "new atheists". That seems to be how they have dealt with Professor Andrews in the past. Their reasons then, and the reason now is simple: They cannot answer his arguments from science and honest reason.

Professor Andrews is not just a man with high scientific and academic qualifications. He is also an excellent teacher, able to communicate complex and abstract concepts (including the nature of science, and many of the theories of modern science) in a way that is clear and understandable to ordinary readers, who don't have the background or training that he himself brings to the table. Perhaps the best of the reviews on the back of the book in that regard was written by a housewife.

Note that even though it is readable and easily understood, it is accurate and precise in its handling of the scientific material it covers (unlike many of the "new atheists"). While its logic runs contrary to evolutionary dogma, it is careful to treat science itself with honesty and respect.

I recommend the book to anyone with an interest in science or technology. If you are open-minded enough to handle what it has to say, you will find it well worth your while. Be warned, that Professor Andrews goes where the science leads him, which may give doctrinaire Creationists heartburn (particularly in the US) as well as doctrinaire humanists. While the book is accessible, gentle, and easy to read it will make you think. I was forced to take my time going through it in order to think through some of the ideas and reasoning it presented.

Why should the Devil get all the good scientists? It sometimes seems that way, doesn't it? We hear of scientists like Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins and others who are acclaimed as being at the top of their field and almost inevitably it seems that they are atheists or otherwise committed to explaining the world in terms of Darwinian evolution. Occasionally we find a great dissenting mind, but then we discover that that person is committed to beliefs that seem opposed to the plain account of Scripture. So we have Francis Collins who writes The Language of God but who in the book says that, though God exists, life and creation can be explained in terms of natural laws and processes that do not depend on the Divine hand of God. It is both tiresome and frustrating.

But here at last comes Edgar Andrews whose list of academic credentials include more letters than all the names in my family: BSc, PhD, DSc, FInstP, FIMMM, CEng, CPhys (which, according to a site I consulted, is together an anagram for disbenching tscpf fpsps chym- cmd `m). No, I don't know what any of those degrees mean, but they sure sound impressive. He is Emeritus Professor of Materials at the University of London and an international expert on the science of large molecules (not small ones, mind you, only the large ones). His credentials include things that sound like they must set him apart; things such as this: In September 1972 he was one of four specially invited speakers at the dedication symposium of the Michigan Molecular Institute, two of the others being Nobel Laureates Paul Flory and Melvin Calvin.

Put it all together and you find that Andrews is one smart dude. He's smarter than you and me and the rest of us put together. And in his new book Who Made God? he launches a full front assault on the new atheists. He does this not through a point-by-point refutation of their books, but by an insightful look at science and the existence of God. An excellent writer who mixes a subtle British sense of humor with a powerful intellect and a deep understanding of science, he very quickly picks apart the arguments we have for so long been hearing from the likes of Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking and even Francis Collins. Yet he still crafts a book that is readable and, best of all, understandable. Even the chapter dealing with string theory is comprehensible--no small feat for a smart guy writing about what lies at the very frontier of science.

The topics Andrews covers range from the existence of God to the nature of hypotheses to the abilities of mutations to create. Through it all, he shows how the claims of atheism and naturalism fall short--how they rely on bad science, how they require bad logic or unfair hypotheses and how they are beneath the very minds that create them. He draws the reader to inevitable conclusion that there is a Creator who is pre-existent and who is living and active in the world today. By the end he draws the gaze of the created to the majesty of the Creator and calls the reader to see God for who he is.

A powerful book and one that is exceptionally well-written, Who Made God? is just the book I've been waiting for. It aptly refutes the claims of the new atheists but does so without giving away the farm in the meantime. And I couldn't ask for much more than that.

This is the kind of Christian Apologetics book I enjoy reading.

Most apologetics books rehash the same answers and arguments. Occasionally one brings some new insight, or at least a new way of explaining the answers such that it sparks new thought. This is that book.

Fun to read, because the author clearly does not take himself too seriously (he utilizes the English cartoon character `Sooty' in one of his explanations for heavens sake!) yet attacks these serious subjects head on with wit and charm. Yet he shows no mercy to the tired attacks on Christianity of the `new atheists' vis-à-vis physics, miracles, natural law, an immoral God, etc.
One of those supposed argument-ending-money-maker lines of the `skeptic' is always "You say God made everything? Well then tell me who made God?" Andrews spends 278 pages of text and 12 pages of supporting documentation explaining why this is an incoherent question, akin to `Have you stopped beating your wife?' or `how long is string?', and how the answer is evident via a serious analysis of the facts of nature, readily available.

The central thesis of the book is a presentation of the difference between a proof arrived by syllogism, and the preferred and beautiful approach of making a hypothesis and then examining the facts that support it (yes - he is indeed using the Scientific Method to confirm the existence of God!)

This book answers the question with no stone unturned. It's a wonderful primer - a little bit logic, a little bit physics, a little bit philosophy. He makes sure that we don't allow the `new atheists' to get away with phrasing the issues in an incorrect manner, and that we answer the right questions. In doing so, he knocks down fantasy pseudo-sciences such as imaginary time and cyclic universes. He also brilliantly shows why the worn-out complaint of the `God of the gaps', an impotent God (of open theology), a Deistic God, and a Universalist God is NOT the God he is referring to.

The hypothesis Andrews seeks out to prove is status simply: "The God of the Bible exists". He then proceeds to "seek to demonstrate that this hypothesis explains human observation and experience far better than atheism or even science can ever do..." He proves the hypothesis by examining observations in the areas of: Cosmic Origins, the existence and manner of Time, Natural and communal Law, Miracles, Information Theory, the Origin of Life, Abiogenesis, Evolution, and Morality.

Here is an example, regarding miracles, of his unique prose and thought, of which are found throughout...
"C.S. Lewis has a clearer view of the miraculous, pointing out that if a non-material (or spiritual) realm exists at all, there must of necessity be an interface between this realm and the natural world - as a shoreline marks the interface between land and sea. And just as the sea may sometimes flood across that interface and invade the land, so the spiritual may from time to time invade the physical world."

I did have only a few areas of fuss with Andrews - I think he discounts Intelligent Design too quickly, and I think he may have mischaracterized Behe's position on Evolution - but those are easily overlooked in whole.

Too many apologetics books are re-hashed information and arguments - this is not one of those books. This is the kind of book that makes me want to read more of Andrews, and actually write a review recommending him!

Mike-- [...]

Overall, Andrews' work does a nice job of supporting the Christian worldview while discussing how science fits into that perspective. His scientific background gives his writing a style different than many apologetics. That style is, basically, clear and well structured.

What I found most beneficial was Andrews' discussion of DNA and genetic mutation. Evolutionary theory (the worldview that has to see EVERYTHING through a Darwinian lens) is assumed as fact by many. Even if that is true, I would venture that most don't really understand how Evolution actually works (how natural selection has to work with genes already present, how mutations often DEVOLVE and are extraordinarily difficult to observe). People simply look at anything (behavior, etc.) and assume it to be somehow related to Natural Selection because Science validates that viewpoint and who are we to argue. It was nice to hear the discussion of Evolution from someone who doesn't necessarily see everything through the lens of Foregone Conclusion. Andrews poses worthwhile questions - with an admirable scientific ethos - about just HOW evolution can account for things like abstract thinking (Can ALL abstract concepts have evolutionary benefit? Why?) and every possible aspect of human identity behavior. The naturalist CAN'T see any other possible explanation for anything, which - as Andrews points out - seems as "unfalsifiable" as the theist who attributes everything to God. (For me, this has always been the most confusing aspect of the reductionist aspect of Evolution: if EVERYTHING we think and do is simply an evolutionary tool that, in and of itself, cannot be trusted as what we think it is, why on Earth do we think we can trust our thoughts about Evolution?)

Also, I will add a criticism of Andrews' endorsement of "dualism." He claims it is the proper way to view the material brain vs the metaphysical mind. While I understand his point, "dualism" is by no means Christian (his world view). The Dualism of Ancient Greece is, in fact, related to the Gnosticism denounced in I John. Basically, it holds that the physical world is evil and ONLY by rejecting it can we find the "special" spiritual knowledge of the metaphysical. This is close but not quite what Christians believe. The physical world is fallen and can be an impediment, but God plans on restoring it. Revelation describes heaven coming DOWN to Earth, ultimately. God plans to restore His physical creation, not destroy it. That's not dualism.

Also, I was interested to see CS Lewis cast as a theistic evolutionist. Lewis' quotation certainly sounds TE. It caught my attention primarily because I recently read Lewis' "Funeral of a Great Myth", which didn't seem TE in nature.

In short, an excellent read for many, including Christians wondering just how their viewpoint fits into a world that, basically, worships anything that has the endorsement of Science.

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!

I found this book to be well organized and well written. The humor and the easy scientific explanations made me keep reading. And it revealed much about how we fall into logic traps in our reasoning, especially when we ask unanswerable questions like who made God or how long is a string?. Even scientists can profit from reading this book.

Very interesting book that is written in an accessible manner. As well as addressing the probability of there being a creator as cause for our existence, it is also a very good general science book.

It has been written in such a way that it would fascinate just about anyone rather than just those who have qualifications in science. Edgar Andrews has said that was his intention and I think he has managed to achieve just that.

This is one of my favorite books of the last couple of years along with these:

Christianity and Liberalism

Let Us Reason

Good points: well written, flows, short chapters (for short attention spans), explains complex physics well.

Bad points: I have a few main problems with this book, that are too drastic to give it anything higher that two stars.
1) Not every atheist is Richard Dawkings or Victor Stenger. I quote, "Doesn't Dr. Stenger's idea that simplicity begets complexity totally contradict Richard Dawkins' argument that God, having created an exceedingly complex universe, must be even more complex and thus highly improbable? ... But then again, consistency never was atheism's strong point." (p.78)
Not only is it completely irrelevant, given that there is nothing to say what atheists should believe (meaning that an atheist doesn't have to agree with every other atheist), this is also irrelevant to the actual book (especially that chapter). Comparing atheists to one another is like an atheist going, 'Oh look, christians and muslims can't agree! They must be wrong.' It's just an ad hominem. Atheism only tells a person that they don't believe in a god, nothing more.
Also, no one is forced to agree with the National Academy of Sciences or Stephen Gould when they say that science says nothing about God. Saying that everyone should agree, like the book implies, is an argument from authority.
I personally have never even read 'The God Delusion,' does that mean I'm a bad atheist? :p (Side note: if he explained Dawkins' view on miracles correctly, then I do agree that this book refutes his claims.)

2) He misrepresents evolutionary biology. Since this is not a rebuttal to his book, I will just point you in the right direction (Google search: "Index to creationist claims" and click first link.)

3)He misrepresents cosmology. While he does a good job at telling you the basics, he doesn't tell you all of it. Singularities are not avoided only in imaginary time; singularities are avoided also by simply realizing that we do not have a quantum theory of gravity. Thus, using the singularity theorems to state that the universe must have began is not necessarily true. The whole point that Dr. Stenger was making is that if we have a plausible natural explanation that we should pick this over a supernatural one. Whether you agree or not is up to you.
Regarding time: The arrow of time is a result of entropy, yes. However, the second law is purely statistical that is meaningful only when the number of particles is large. On the quantum scale, entropy fluctuates, and there is no arrow of time (at least like we experience it). (Further reading: "From Eternity to Here" by Sean Carroll)

4) Who made God? His answer, the question doesn't make sense because God is defined as the uncreated. Simple enough. But let's try this: I define quantum fields as being uncreated. (Know what? Universes can come from quantum fields! :p) The fact of the matter is, saying that God is uncreated by definition just begs the question. (I'm quite aware he spent the vast majority of the book trying to explain how his version of the God Hypothesis wasn't begging the question. I'm not saying that part was. Although, to use string theory as an example as how his God Hypothesis would work is kind of... bad, given that string theory isn't proven either.) So does his statements saying that science doesn't explain anything. "A genuine explanation, I suggest, would consist of a train of reasoning that leads back only to premises that are intuitive or self-evident." (p.30) Sorry, not only is 'intuitive' subjective, not every explanation needs to be this way. Just because something doesn't make sense doesn't mean it isn't an explanation. So, what is the ultimate explainer? God, of course. But no, that isn't the case. Anyone can propose a number of questions needing an explanation that 'God did it' doesn't explain. (E.g. Why is God's will effective? Why did God will anything? Why does God behave the way he does? Why does God care? Etc.) You may say, that's just how God is (or, that's just how God is defined). Okay, well, the universe is the way it is because that's just how the universe is. No need for a God to answer that question.

So, since this is not a rebuttal to the book, I will leave my four objections at this: he misrepresents atheists, he misrepresents evolution, he misrepresents cosmology, and he fails to provide an answer that does any good (to people who don't already believe) as to 'Who made God?' These objections, as well as a good number of logical leaps and bounds, and logical fallacies, prevent me from giving this book a rating of greater than two stars. Also, for a book that is supposed to explain how God fits in with the findings of science, it would be nice if there was more than a small handful of scientific references...

I recommend, 'The Existence of God' by Richard Swineburne.

God said: "Let us reason together" (Isaiah 1:18). All tinking people must employ reason. One needs a gound for human reason: God. Thus the non-theist borrows from the Christian worldview when he uses reason. Many non-theists testify that they adore reason and logic. That is the rationale behind Robert Ingersoll's assertion: "Upon every brain reason should be enthroned as king." Hostile skeptics do not want to bow to God, so they will bow down to an idol, such as human reason. This creates a big problem for them: Deny God and one cannot account for reason. A great example of this is what happened in the debate between a theist (Comfort) and atheist Ron Barrier. Mr. Barrier accidentally picked up Comfort's glasses while making his case for atheism. Comfort in his response said to the crowd, "If you are an atheist, you are wearing someone else's glasses." That is what all atheists and unbelievers do: They borrow from theism whenever they use the laws of reason or moral laws; these are immaterial laws, the atheist cannot justify, only the Christian can. Remember, the non-theist only believes that the physical world exists, reality consists of matter and motion and nothing more. Non-theists, when they use and apply the laws of logic, are borrowing theistic glasses. The job of the theist is to take the glasses off their head and let them know, without theism, they cannot see anything at all. C.S. Lewis' notion that I believe in God as I believe in the Sun; not so much that I see the Sun, it's more like without the Sun, I cannot see anything at all. The only lens that can make sense of the world and give us vision is God's revealed word. And in "Who Made God?" Edgar Andrews (former professor of chemistry) posits the existence of God as a theory of everything; everything that one can see and not see.

Andrews affirms that the beginning of the universe, the laws of nature, the origin of biochemical life, the rational mind, and knowledge require God as the ground for a theory of everything.

As a chemist the author rebuts:

- Dawkins' "God Delusion"
- Stenger's "God, the Failed Hypothesis"
- The new atheists
- Naturalism
- Some of the ideas of scholars in Intelligent Design group.

This volume in written in a non-technical manner; it is a fascinating and easy read. The author uses many interesting illustrations that help comprehension.

"Who Made God?" is endorsed by:

- Randy Alcorn
- Robert Strivens
- Tim Challies
- David Kim.

I would add: It is not so much that one cannot prove that God does not exist or that we can prove that God does exist, both these assertions are true, but God must be, to explain anything. The true God lives, and everything we think, do, or say, presupposes the truth that God lives. Without God, one cannot make sense of anything, even the very question of God's existence. He has to exist, or we could not ponder that question or any other question. Everything around us can only be justified if God lives. All atheists know that God exists because the atheist has to rest upon the Christian worldview to deny God's existence.

The atheist must employ the laws of logic, moral law, and other immutable universal immaterial truths to pronounce that God doesn't exist. When he does this, he affirms Christianity, even as he attempts to refute it forasmuch as the he atheist cannot furnish the necessary pre-environment for the laws of logic and all other universal changeless laws. The non-theist claims he doesn't have enough evidence to believe in God. Nevertheless there is evidence all around him, nothing but evidence. Anyone, who just opens his eyes, believes in right and wrong, knows that God dwells in eternity. It's like the old folk slogan: "It doesn't take a doctor of veterinary medicine to know when a dead skunk is on the road." Only with God, as our foundation for life, can we make sense out of the world. To allege that God does not exist, requires God to exist to make the allegation.

"Who Made God?" comes with a fine index and many useful notes. This is an informative read that will benefit the minister, science buff, and average lay-reader.

See the New Apologetic book:
Truth, Knowledge and the Reason for God: The Defense of the Rational Assurance of Christianity

If you have been looking for a book that dives heavily into both the scientific and theological realm, this is what you've been looking for. Dr. Andrews sets out not primarily to address the immediate attacks from the new atheists of today (though he does that), but to explore a hypothesis of the God of the Bible, using the methods of science and reason. There was about 10% of the details that I did not fully understand (Quantum Mechanics is WAY over my head), but in each case he was clear as to his point, and even breaks it down for the every day man, so that it is understandable.

He addresses common mistakes that scientists have made concerning the presuppositions of a purely naturalistic universe and zeros in on the false dichotomy between religion and science (seems like science has been hijacked by a non-scientific worldview). The issue of origins is put to the test in great detail, and all of the major questions of how we came to be are addressed. It was either God or turtles (inside joke for an infinite regress).

The initial question of the book is quickly put to rest, because the question within the question must be asked in order for "who made God?" to make any sense. That question being, "who is God?". If God, for the sake of His hypothesis, can be known as the uncreated Creator, then the original question turns into, "who created the uncreated one?", which is a nonsense question, since the answer is found within itself. Now that doesn't necessarily prove the existence of God (he goes travels great lengths toward that in the rest of the book), but it does put to rest a presuppositional question that many believe is the dagger to the theist's heart.

Not only is this man an expert in his field, but he is also a great communicator. What could be a dry and drawn out book is instead easily accessible and sometimes funny. The best part about this book, to me, was found in the fact that his progression in the second half deals in every way with the progression of my current science class. Dealing with cellular biology and DNA just fascinates me. He then shows the ridiculousness of having information (i.e. the information stored in DNA) come from non information through the series of evolution through natural selection. But all the while being fair toward each side of the argument by representing them well. Simply put, I have not found a better book on this subject that is as technical and to the point, as well as having such an easy flow for the reader.

If you have a scientifically driven friend or relative who is skeptical about Jesus, this would be a great starting point for him/her.