Who Made God? Searching For a Theory of Everything
Andrews (Edgar)
This Page provides (where held) the Abstract of the above Book and those of all the Papers contained in it.
Text Colour-ConventionsDisclaimerPapers in this BookBooks / Papers Citing this BookNotes Citing this Book


Cover Blurb

  1. 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. As Fay Weldon writes, the book is "Thoughtful, readable, witty, wise ..."
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

Amazon Reviews
  1. If you have been looking for a thoughtful, cogent and accessible counterpoint to the recent flurry of publications by the so-called New Atheists, you need look no further than Edgar Andrews’ Who Made God?. Rather than offering an ad hoc response to the assertions made by Richard Dawkins and the like, Dr. Andrews instead asks us to consider a different way in to the conversation to approach belief in the biblical God as a thesis in and of itself, one that is worthy of our thoughtful consideration. He asks us to apply the methodology of hypothesis to the question of God to see how it fits and, in fact, it proves to fit remarkably well. With great clarity and rousing humour, Dr. Andrews applies the thesis of God to questions like the problem of time, the nature of humanity and the question of morality and demonstrates how belief in God has both simple elegance and far-reaching explanatory power. I appreciated the exposing of the reductionistic tendencies that atheists are forced to adopt, thus limiting their ability to conceive the wonder and beauty of the material universe. I also appreciated how unscientific science can be and how we should be wary of those who use/abuse the name of science to promote unscientific assumptions and conclusions. I really appreciated the explanation of quantum physics and how the author makes complex physics understandable and entertaining. This was one of my favorite chapters. I found helpful the author’s delineations of the caricatures of God and the discussion on time was one of the most thought-provoking sections. I found the connection between time and entropy fascinating.
    … Rev. Abraham Cho, Fellowship Group Director, Redeemer Presbyterian Church, New York
  2. In our increasingly multi-disciplinary world, we need those rare scholars who are able to combine the expertise of two different fields of study. Edgar Andrews possesses this ability, bringing together scientific and theological expertise to present a work that is both engaging and palatable. It is this synthesis that makes this book a very important and unique contribution to the larger arena of faith and science. This is not simply another book on Intelligent Design, nor is it a defence of Theistic Evolution. Who Made God? masterfully weaves a mature Christian theology with recent scientific findings to produce a nuanced and compelling argument that does not caricaturize either science or theology but maintains the integrity of both. The author’s knowledgeable passion for both science and theology, coupled with a witty and playful writing style, makes the book a must read for those who question the intersection of science and Christianity. It has been a pleasure to read this book. I don't mean to sound overly flattering, but Dr Andrews has done the world a great service by adding this to our shelves. I am impressed by the way he has maintained the integrity of both science and theology, revealing comfort in both fields. I have been waiting for a book just like this to recommend to others; one that I don’t feel compromises theological or scientific integrity and truth. The God hypothesis will be unpalatable to many, but to those who have sincere questions this book will provide an invaluable apologetic. There is so much science and theology in the book and yet the writing style makes difficult and complex concepts accessible. While there were a few sections that were challenging to understand, the book as a whole is easy to read.
    … Rev. David Kim, New York
  3. Starting with the hypothesis of God, Professor Andrews sets out to demonstrate that the existence of the God of the Bible makes better sense of what we can actually learn from science than does atheism. On his way to this conclusion he also points out the scientific and logical inadequacies of evolutionism. He succeeds in doing so with a deceptively light touch but there is nothing lightweight about either his analysis or the rigour with which he pursues his case. This is apologetics at its best: immensely instructive for the Christian and utterly devastating for the atheist.
    … Daniel Webber, Director, European Missionary Fellowship

Comments
  1. This book was recommended by Sylvia. For the book’s website, see Link. It seems that there’s an interplay between this book and "Stenger (Victor J.) - God the Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist". When I’ve read both, I’ll make some comment on the debate.
  2. However, while I’m happy to accept natural theology as a possible route to deism, it strikes me as wishful thinking to suggest that it’ll lead to theism, and to the particular theism that the author happens to espouse. Especially as the espousers of inconsistent theisms manage to persuade themselves that modern science leads the dispassionate seeker exclusively to their own espoused God.

Contents
    To get you started: Introduction – 9
  1. Sooty and the universe: Who made God? – 13
  2. Yogurt, cereal and toast: Can science explain everything? – 27
  3. Stringing it all together: Searching for a theory of everything – 39
  4. Pouring concrete: Foundations and hypotheses – 51
  5. Ferrets and fallacies: A brief critique of God, the failed hypothesis – 63
  6. Defining God: What do we mean by ‘God'? – 79
  7. Starting with a bang: Cosmic origins – 93
  8. Steam engine to the stars: Time and the hypothesis of God – 107
  9. Peeling onions: The ubiquity of law in conscience, nature and society – 123
  10. Cosmic chess: The origin of the laws of nature – 137
  11. Over the moon: Natural law and miracles – 155
  12. Information, stupid! The origin of life – 173
  13. Life in a cake mixer: The origin of living organisms – 193
  14. The tidy pachyderm: A critique of neo-Darwinianism – 211
  15. The mighty mutation: Can mutations create? – 227
  16. The second shoe: Man and his mind – 247
  17. Man and his Maker: Man, morality and redemption – 263
    References and notes – 279
    Index – 291
Book Comment

EP Books (24 Sep 2009)


"Andrews (Edgar) - Who Made God? Searching For a Theory of Everything: Introduction"

Source: Andrews (Edgar) - Who Made God? Searching For a Theory of Everything, Introduction


Notes
  1. The book does not think there’s an answer to the book’s title. It’s a response to the New Atheists (eg. Richard Dawkins) who ask the question “If God made everything, who made God?”. Andrews alleges that we have “a cabal of academic atheists diligently reinventing the Vienna Circle” and describes logical positivism as “a failed philosophy if ever there was one”. In response:-
    • The New Atheist question is one of explanatory and ontological regress. The theistic response is that God requires no further explanation, and is the “ground of all being”. Atheists don’t find the response as satisfying as theists. They claim that if the regress has to stop somewhere, why not just take the universe as basic?
    • I think Andrews doesn’t understand Logical Positivism. The reason it failed was primarily as a theory of meaning – “the meaning of a proposition is its method of verification”. Many unverifiable propositions are now accepted as meaningful, but may still remain “not even false”, because there’s no way of deciding on their truth-values. The Vienna Circle was “against” such propositions, and they were right – and so are the New Atheists. They were also against so-called concepts without clear content. All sensible stuff.
    • The distance between the New Atheists and the Logical Positivists in areas other than philosophical rigour can be seen by noting that the New Atheists are willing to consider the “God hypothesis”, even if they find it wanting. They find it meaningful, but false, rather than meaningless.
    • The introduction of “bogey” terms, and aligning your opponents without justification with commonly-despised beliefs, is to be deplored.
  2. Andrews wants to develop a “theory of everything” that goes beyond physics to matters of value. He thinks we already have such a theory: “the hypothesis of God”. This “theory”, though, isn’t the same sort of clear, quantifiable entity that we’ve come to expect in science and philosophy, though it might be an explanatory paradigm or an umbrella-presupposition within which quantifiable theories are couched.
  3. There’s a smug quotation from Robert Jastrow (God and the Astronomers, 1992), to the effect that theologians have known for centuries what scientists are just discovering. This misrepresents the facts. Even if science were ultimately to require a theistic paradigm, the details of the theories falling under that paradigm are not those of revealed religion (if there is any) or theology.
  4. This chapter closes with the claim that the “small beginning” made on this unified theory “will surely trump the barren nihilistic landscape of atheism”. But atheists – or the New ones at least – robustly deny that atheism is barren or nihilistic. Barren in the light of “eternity”, maybe, but lots of fruitful lives can be lived in the interim between now and the heat-death of the universe. Atheists would claim that the unrealistic longing for “eternity” poisons much of whatever good can be had from our finite lives. Should we refuse to attend the party just because it doesn’t go on for ever?


"Andrews (Edgar) - Sooty and the universe: Who made God?"

Source: Andrews (Edgar) - Who Made God? Searching For a Theory of Everything, Chapter 1


Author’s Abstract
  1. Chapter One ... in which we set out to answer the unanswerable question, 'If God made everything, who made God?' We'll discover that it is unanswerable only in the same sense as the question, 'How long is a piece of string?' — which remains a nonsense question until we define which piece of string we are talking about. In the same way, to answer the challenge 'Who made God?' we must define what we mean by 'God’.
  2. In particular, we’ll examine three contentions beloved of atheists.
    • Firstly, the claim that 'we made God' (that God is an invention of the human mind);
    • secondly, the idea that God is so complex that he is too improbable to exist; and
    • thirdly, the suggestion that God has to have a cause because everything else does.
  3. New words?1
    • Ontology: the study of existence or 'being’.
    • Entropy: The quantity in thermodynamics that measures randomness.
    • Savant: A wise person; a thinker.
    • Stasis: A condition where no changes occur.
    • Thermodynamics: The study of heat and energy (especially their flow and transfer).



In-Page Footnotes ("Andrews (Edgar) - Sooty and the universe: Who made God?")

Footnote 1: I note these (as given by the author), not for the usefulness of the definitions, but as an indication of the topics under discussion, and of the low level of education presumed of the reader.


"Andrews (Edgar) - Yogurt, cereal and toast: Can science explain everything?"

Source: Andrews (Edgar) - Who Made God? Searching For a Theory of Everything, Chapter 2


Author’s Abstract
  1. Chapter Two .. in which we challenge the common but mistaken idea that science explains (or some day will explain) everything, leaving no room for God to take responsibility for the universe and the way it works. To make the point, we sit down to a humorous breakfast of yogurt, cereal and toast to illustrate the fact that science actually explains nothing, except in terms of its own bizarre concepts.
  2. These include such non-intuitive ideas as the warping of space and time, and the wondrously strange world of quantum mechanics1 — where the same particle can be in two places at once, and one particle knows what another is doing even when mites away from it. Einstein wasn't at all happy about this state of affairs and believed that there must be some deeper and more intuitive underlying truth. In short, science can describe the fundamental structures of matter, energy, space and time but can hardly be said to explain them.
  3. New words?2
    • Phenomenology: The way phenomena (things that are seen or observed) manifest themselves.



In-Page Footnotes ("Andrews (Edgar) - Yogurt, cereal and toast: Can science explain everything?")

Footnote 2: I note these (as given by the author), not for the usefulness of the definitions, but as an indication of the topics under discussion, and of the low level of education presumed of the reader.


"Andrews (Edgar) - Stringing it all together: Searching for a theory of everything"

Source: Andrews (Edgar) - Who Made God? Searching For a Theory of Everything, Chapter 3


Author’s Abstract
  1. Chapter Three ... in which the wonderful world of physics grows 'curiouser and curiouser' (to borrow Alice's charming phrase). When we ended the previous chapter we knew that the tiny particles that constitute matter and energy behave in very odd ways, but at least we knew what they were. But as the twentieth century unfolded, this simplicity was wrecked by the discovery of a veritable zoo of previously unknown particles. The horrible truth began to dawn. Physicists no longer knew what things were really made of.
  2. Into this chaotic scene rode a white knight — string theory — which claims to explain everything we previously didn't understand. But just like quantum mechanics1, string theory comes at a huge cost in comprehensibility, requiring space to have ten or more dimensions for starters.
  3. Nevertheless, this could be the 'theory of everything' that everyone is looking for — or not, as the case may be. Some think the white knight is just an empty suit of armour, an impostor that can, in fact, explain nothing.


"Andrews (Edgar) - Pouring concrete: Foundations and hypotheses"

Source: Andrews (Edgar) - Who Made God? Searching For a Theory of Everything, Chapter 4


Author’s Abstract
  1. Chapter Four ... in which, beginning with earthquakes and Bob the postman, we start to lay foundations — otherwise known as 'hypotheses'. That's how science usually works, by using hypotheses as a basis for theory-building, first proposing a foundational idea and then testing whether its predictions make sense and correspond to reality. We'll call this 'the hypothetic method' and consider its merits and pitfalls, before introducing 'the hypothesis of God’.
  2. This begins by proposing that God exists, and goes on to explore where this assumption leads us, as we try to get our minds around the 'whys and wherefores' of the cosmos, life and ourselves. We'll work the idea out in detail as the book progresses.
  3. New words?1
    • Syllogism: An argument that draws a conclusion from two separate initial assertions (or premises) which contain a common term. For example: All birds have feathers; all ostriches are birds; therefore all ostriches have feathers. A false2 syllogism is one in which the conclusion is invalid because it is hidden somewhere in the premises.
    • Tautology: A statement that seems to impart new information but actually repeats what is already known. For example3: 'This cat was extraordinarily feline', meaning, 'this cat was unusually cat-like’.
    • Teleological: Relating to purpose or design; devised or ordained in advance for a purpose4.
    • Palaeontology: The study of fossils.
    • Magisterium: Teaching authority.



In-Page Footnotes ("Andrews (Edgar) - Pouring concrete: Foundations and hypotheses")

Footnote 1: I note these (as given by the author), not for the usefulness of the definitions, but as an indication of the topics under discussion, and of the low level of education presumed of the reader.

Footnote 2: I’ve not heard of this term. The conclusion of a syllogism is always “in the premises”, whether hidden or not. Deductive arguments – of which the syllogism is the paradigm case – add nothing to the premises – they just make clear what other true statements follow from these premises taken together. A syllogism would be invalid if the conclusion wasn’t hidden in the premises. Also, conclusions are true or false, not valid or invalid – this is the preserve of arguments. A deductive argument is invalid if it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. This doesn’t augur well for the quality of the author’s arguments.

Footnote 3: The definition is correct, but the example isn’t. Plato, for instance, would allow that cats are more cat-like the more they conform to the Form of The Cat. And we allow that women are more or less feminine. ‘The cat is a feline’ would be more appropriate, in that all cats have to be somewhat cat-like (the meaning of ‘feline’) or they wouldn’t be cats.

Footnote 4: Usually, the focus is on the “end” of a process, whether purposive or not.


"Andrews (Edgar) - Ferrets and fallacies: A brief critique of God, the failed hypothesis"

Source: Andrews (Edgar) - Who Made God? Searching For a Theory of Everything, Chapter 5


Author’s Abstract
  1. Chapter Five ... in which we undertake a brief critique of Victor Stenger's book1 God, the failed hypothesis: How science shows that God does not exist. Having introduced the hypothesis of God, we take up the challenge of one particular atheist who pronounces this hypothesis a failure and claims that science proves it so.
  2. We'll see that the claim is wholly without merit, being based on faulty reasoning and tendentious interpretations of science. Stenger’s first mistake is to suppose that all hypotheses are scientific hypotheses, which brings him into conflict with friends and foe alike. He then constructs and dismantles a number of straw men (including belief in a flat Earth and assorted ancient cosmologies) before claiming that simplicity begets complexity — perhaps not realizing that Richard Dawkins claims the exact opposite2.
  3. Dr Stenger goes on to argue unconvincingly against the concept of 'irreducible complexity' and intelligent design, but we're able to put him right3 with the help of Sir Fred Hoyle's jumbo jet and a box of flat-pack furniture. Eventually he vanishes into the black hole of his own logic, but we shan't see that till chapter 10. Quite entertaining4.



In-Page Footnotes ("Andrews (Edgar) - Ferrets and fallacies: A brief critique of God, the failed hypothesis")

Footnote 1: See "Stenger (Victor J.) - God the Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist".

Footnote 2: I’ve no doubt that any apparent disagreement between Stenger and Dawkins on this issue will dissolve when the contexts of their various claims are made plain. It’s a standard observation from chaos theory that complex outcomes arise from very simple equations. If Dawkins disagrees with that, he’s wrong, but I doubt that he does.

Footnote 3: The “jumbo jet” analogy is rather feeble and played out – basically because it ignores selection and the gradual stage-constructed process of evolution.

Footnote 4: This “entertainment” is smug and self-congratulatory (and, sadly, is to be found on the other side of the argument as well). The discussion would be entertaining only if the “entertained” side is right, and their opponents clearly wrong – which is rarely the case in any dispute of significance.


"Andrews (Edgar) - Defining God: What do we mean by ‘God'?"

Source: Andrews (Edgar) - Who Made God? Searching For a Theory of Everything, Chapter 6


Author’s Abstract
  1. Chapter Six ... in which, having left our atheists looking for God down a rabbit hole, we now get on with the serious business of defining what we mean by 'God’. We'll consider some common misconceptions1 about God — like
    • the 'God of the gaps';
    • the complementary God;
    • the 'don't blame me' God (who takes responsibility for nothing);
    • the absent-landlord God; and
    • the lowest-common-denominator God.
  2. Having clarified who God isn't, we are free to ask who he is. Advancing the 'hypothesis' of God allows me to define God any way I like without pre-empting discussion about his nature. So I can (and do) define2 God as 'the God of the Bible' — without fear of being accused of assuming what I want to prove. Any proof will come as, in the remainder of this book, we compare what my hypothesis predicts with reality.
  3. We'll discover that my definition3 necessarily introduces the concepts of eternity, creation and revelation. As the book unfolds, we shall then test the explanatory power of the hypothesis by checking out its implications and seeing how well they agree with the evidence from science, the humanities and personal experience.
  4. New words?4
    • Epistemological: Relating to knowledge or thought5.
    • Predicated: Affirmed on the basis of some stated grounds.
    • Hubristic: Contemptuous; having overweening pride.



In-Page Footnotes ("Andrews (Edgar) - Defining God: What do we mean by ‘God'?")

Footnote 1: This list is usually generated by natural theology. So, Andrews is going to reject natural theology in favour of revealed religion.

Footnote 2: This isn’t even an implicit definition as “the God of the Bible” isn’t defined in the Bible. What he’s saying is that the reference of the term “God” as used by him is the same as the reference of the term “God” when used in the Bible. There may be problems here:-
  • Jews, Gnostics and others (even atheists) consider that the term “God” is not univocal with respect to the Old and New Testaments.
  • Andrews will be saddled with making reasonable all that “the God of the Bible” is said to have done, not just the bits of interest to physics or natural theology.
  • When comparing the “the God of the Bible” with physics, how much difference would there be if he started off with the god of any other revealed religion – in particular, Islam or Judaism?
Footnote 3: These concepts aren’t part of any definition, but are deductions from an empirical analysis of the text of the Bible. He must beware of sliding into theology.

Footnote 4: I note these (as given by the author), not for the usefulness of the definitions, but as an indication of the topics under discussion, and of the low level of education presumed of the reader.

Footnote 5: ’Thought’ would normally be considered under the province of philosophy of mind, or maybe psychology, rather than of epistemology.


"Andrews (Edgar) - Starting with a bang: Cosmic origins"

Source: Andrews (Edgar) - Who Made God? Searching For a Theory of Everything, Chapter 7


Author’s Abstract
  1. Chapter Seven ... in which we turn to serious business and begin to consider things that science, by its very nature, will never be able to explain. Let's start with the subject of cosmic creation and explore in layman-friendly terms such topics as Einstein's relativity theories, the expanding universe and the 'background' cosmic radiation. We shall find that all these things imply that the material universe has not always existed, as cosmologists once thought, but that it had a real beginning.
  2. This beginning can be modelled in various ways such as a 'hot big bang' singularity, but all such models point to an origin in which space, time, matter and energy came into being ex nihilo (out of nothing) — just as the biblical hypothesis of God predicts.
  3. Current scientific cosmologies thus imply the existence of a non-physical realm (we'll call it 'eternity') that transcends space and time and within which the physical universe was created. We shall discover that the hypothesis of God correctly predicts what science is only now beginning to reveal about this non-physical realm.
  4. New words?1
    • Boojum and Snark: Mythical creatures that feature in Lewis Carroll's nonsense poem, The Hunting of the Snark.
    • Cosmology: the study of the cosmos or universe as a whole.
    • Phenomenological: relating to the way things appear.
    • Singularity: an event or situation in which one or more physical quantities (like temperature or density) become infinite in value.



In-Page Footnotes ("Andrews (Edgar) - Starting with a bang: Cosmic origins")

Footnote 1: I note these (as given by the author), not for the usefulness of the definitions, but as an indication of the topics under discussion, and of the low level of education presumed of the reader.


"Andrews (Edgar) - Steam engine to the stars: Time and the hypothesis of God"

Source: Andrews (Edgar) - Who Made God? Searching For a Theory of Everything, Chapter 8


Author’s Abstract
  1. Chapter Eight ... in which we grapple with time and the hypothesis of God. Beginning with a brief history of time, we undertake an entertaining and (as far as possible) non-technical review of what time is all about.
  2. The scientific view of time has its foundations in entropy and the second law of thermodynamics (don't worry, all will be explained). Unlike space, time allows us to go only in one direction. This one-directional 'arrow of time', says science, is the direction of increasing randomness, and this has profound implications for the origin and fate of the physical universe. It means, for example, that time must have both a beginning and an end — but also that all time, past, present and future, still exists. And that implies the necessary existence of eternity.
  3. Such are the theological implications of time that many ask, 'Can we get rid of time?' The atheist needs to do so if he is to avoid the event of creation, so we'll watch him trying (unsuccessfully). By contrast, the hypothesis of God accurately describes the evolving cosmos, time and eternity.
  4. New words?1
    • Continuum: An unbroken expanse.



In-Page Footnotes ("Andrews (Edgar) - Steam engine to the stars: Time and the hypothesis of God")

Footnote 1: I note these (as given by the author), not for the usefulness of the definitions, but as an indication of the topics under discussion, and of the low level of education presumed of the reader.


"Andrews (Edgar) - Peeling onions: The ubiquity of law in conscience, nature and society"

Source: Andrews (Edgar) - Who Made God? Searching For a Theory of Everything, Chapter 9


Author’s Abstract
  1. Chapter Nine ... in which we recognize the universality of law — in human conscience, human nature and human society — and mull over its significance. In chapter 10 we're going to explore how the hypothesis of God addresses the laws of nature, but before doing so we're going to pause to notice something that is easily overlooked. This is the fact that God's hand as the lawgiver is seen in every aspect of human society and experience, not just those areas accessible to science.
  2. Beginning with 'bedknobs and broomsticks', with games, sports and families, we see that human social behaviour at all levels is permeated and regulated by rules and laws. Not only does 'law' underpin human society, it also manifests itself in our consciences, as we distinguish 'right' from 'wrong' and act accordingly.
  3. Can all this be the result of evolution? Or does it make more sense to follow the hypothesis of God and see all Law as flowing from a transcendent yet paternal lawgiver? We'll get some answers by asking three further questions, namely:
    … 1. Why is law so universal throughout the cosmos?
    … 2. How do laws originate — who makes the rules?
    … 3. Why should we care anyway?
  4. New words?1
    • Patria Potestas: paternal power.
    • Ubiquitous: universal; found everywhere.



In-Page Footnotes ("Andrews (Edgar) - Peeling onions: The ubiquity of law in conscience, nature and society")

Footnote 1: I note these (as given by the author), not for the usefulness of the definitions, but as an indication of the topics under discussion, and of the low level of education presumed of the reader.


"Andrews (Edgar) - Cosmic chess: The origin of the laws of nature"

Source: Andrews (Edgar) - Who Made God? Searching For a Theory of Everything, Chapter 10


Author’s Abstract
  1. Chapter Ten ... in which we explore the character and origin of the laws of nature. Without natural laws there could be no science, but where did they come from and how do they work? These are deep questions but we'll keep the treatment light as we consider the universality, elegance, mathematical nature and comprehensibility of the laws of science and nature.
  2. The atheist attempts to explain away the origin of these laws by appealing to yet higher natural laws but that, of course, is turtles all the way up. Alternatively, they claim that we live not in a universe but in a multiverse, inhabiting just one of a possibly infinite multitude of universes, all with different taws of nature. But that can't help either — because whatever the laws may be they have to come from somewhere.
  3. Finally, we examine Victor Stenger's efforts to prove that the laws of nature simply emerged from nothing, but discover that he is confusing two different kinds of 'nothing' — the pre-creation eternity where nothing physical existed and the physical vacuum of space that lies within the created order.
  4. With some relief, we discover that the biblical hypothesis of a transcendent yet immanent God explains both the origin and nature of these laws in a fully satisfying way. It also explains why we can understand them (if we couldn't, there would be no such thing as science in the first place).


"Andrews (Edgar) - Over the moon: Natural law and miracles"

Source: Andrews (Edgar) - Who Made God? Searching For a Theory of Everything, Chapter 11


Author’s Abstract
  1. Chapter Eleven ... in which Richard Dawkins informs us that miracles do happen but are simply highly improbable natural events. He introduces us to the hand-waving marble statue and the cow that jumps over the moon — and claims that such things really could happen. Looking a little closer, however, we find that his arguments are scientifically vacuous.
  2. But why does the atheist need to engage in such Logical contortions, simply to establish that Literally anything will happen by natural causation1 given enough time — false conclusion though this is? Because it's the only way he can account naturalistically for the origin of life (a subject we'll address in later chapters).
  3. Nevertheless, Dawkins has some surprising allies as he argues that nothing can happen except by the strict operation of the laws of nature — people like theist St. Augustine and pantheist Baruch Spinoza. Their arguments, however, lead to a god who paints himself into a corner, rendered impotent by the very laws he has himself created.
  4. 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 — a view that doesn't imprison God within the confines of natural law.


"Andrews (Edgar) - Information, stupid! The origin of life"

Source: Andrews (Edgar) - Who Made God? Searching For a Theory of Everything, Chapter 12


Author’s Abstract
  1. Chapter Twelve ... in which a dysfunctional moon-rover introduces us to information theory and leads us in a search for the ingredients of life. Following a brief layman-friendly explanation — in which we meet the molecules that constitute the basis of life — we consider the scientific impossibility of life arising by chance.
  2. We'll see how information is stored on DNA molecules, transcribed onto RNA molecules and translated into proteins (which are the work-horses of the living cell). The processes of storage, transcription and translation closely mimic an advanced human language, involving codes, syntax and semantics. This 'language of God' (as Francis Collins, Leader of the Human Genome Project, calls it) is present in all living systems and without it no life would be possible. It follows that the essence of life resides not in chemistry but in information and communication — things that can only be the product of intelligence, not chance, and which the hypothesis of God leads us to expect.


"Andrews (Edgar) - Life in a cake mixer: The origin of living organisms"

Source: Andrews (Edgar) - Who Made God? Searching For a Theory of Everything, Chapter 13


Author’s Abstract
  1. Chapter Thirteen ... in which we pursue the jellypod, seeking to understand how the first living organism might have come into existence spontaneously by a chance combination of chemicals. We'll follow the work of Craig Venter who builds artificial DNA but only by using sophisticated chemistry and high intelligence, not by tipping the ingredients into a cake mixer.
  2. We introduce ‘glove soup' and discover why undirected chemistry can never create biopolymer molecules that actually work, let alone the complex molecular machines present in even the simplest living cell. We examine the naturalistic idea that these structures could just happen spontaneously by some kind of self-organization but find it utterly implausible and devoid of scientific content.
  3. Turning to the hypothesis of God, however, we do finally identify an organizing principle — the mind of God — that is more than adequate to explain how life began.
  4. New words?1
    • Jellypod: My pet name for what Haldane called the 'minimal organism’ — the simplest life form that could exist.
    • Panspermia: The idea that life did not evolve on earth but arrived from outer space. 'Directed panspermia' claims that intelligent beings were responsible for such an event.



In-Page Footnotes ("Andrews (Edgar) - Life in a cake mixer: The origin of living organisms")

Footnote 1: I note these (as given by the author), not for the usefulness of the definitions, but as an indication of the topics under discussion, and of the low level of education presumed of the reader.


"Andrews (Edgar) - The tidy pachyderm: A critique of neo-Darwinianism"

Source: Andrews (Edgar) - Who Made God? Searching For a Theory of Everything, Chapter 14


Author’s Abstract
  1. Chapter Fourteen ... in which Rudyard Kipling and blind fish prompt us to take a closer look at the basics of Darwinian evolution, which hails natural selection as the new deity — the blind watchmaker. But it turns out to be a god with feet of clay as we discover the shortcomings and limitations of natural selection as an agent for biological change. To start with, natural selection tends to eliminate variations, not multiply them as evolution requires. We see that get-outs like geographical isolation and biological 'arms races' don't work either. Then there are alternative mechanisms to natural selection, such as genetic drift.
  2. We'll visit the supermarket to demonstrate that natural selection can only select what is already present — it has no creative power. Even worse, new species can only originate by natural selection through the loss of genetic information (leading at best to self-limiting micro-evolution).
  3. Macro-evolution, involving the creation of new organs and animal types, cannot therefore occur by natural selection. The creative power of evolution, if it exists, must lie elsewhere — as we shall see in chapter 15.
  4. New words?1
    • Alleles: Different versions of the same gene, such as the two alleles of the human eye-colour gene that produce brown and blue eyes respectively.
    • Gene pool: The total genetic information of a species or sub-species.
    • Genome: The total genetic information of an individual member of a species.
    • Pachyderm : A thick-skinned non-ruminant animal such as the elephant, hippopotamus and rhinoceros. (From the Greek for 'thick' and 'skin.)



In-Page Footnotes ("Andrews (Edgar) - The tidy pachyderm: A critique of neo-Darwinianism")

Footnote 1: I note these (as given by the author), not for the usefulness of the definitions, but as an indication of the topics under discussion, and of the low level of education presumed of the reader.


"Andrews (Edgar) - The mighty mutation: Can mutations create?"

Source: Andrews (Edgar) - Who Made God? Searching For a Theory of Everything, Chapter 15


Author’s Abstract
  1. Chapter Fifteen ... in which we ask whether random genetic mutations really have the creative power assigned to them in the evolutionary scheme of life. In doing so, we'll get involved in the fascinating world of 'junk DNA' – which may not be junk after all.
  2. Having identified mutations as the only factor in evolution theory that might conceivably introduce new genetic information into the biosphere, we look in vain for evidence that they actually do so. This leads us to examine the whole idea of 'beneficial' mutations.
  3. Such mutations, it is claimed, include the cases of sickle-cell anaemia (malaria resistance) and bacterial drug resistance, so we take a specialty close look at these. They turn out to be beneficial only in a restricted sense, involving a loss of genetic information that just happens to protect the organism from specific threats. But these mutations are not 'beneficial' in the constructive sense needed by evolution – of giving rise to increased biological complexity or sophistication. Quite the reverse.
  4. We'll find that the evidence from mutations points to genome degradation rather than upward evolution. The biblical hypothesis of God accounts for this scenario in terms of the fall of man and nature.
  5. New words?1
    • Biosphere: The realm of living things.
    • Industrial melanism: Dark colouration in organisms, allegedly caused by industrial pollution.



In-Page Footnotes ("Andrews (Edgar) - The mighty mutation: Can mutations create?")

Footnote 1: I note these (as given by the author), not for the usefulness of the definitions, but as an indication of the topics under discussion, and of the low level of education presumed of the reader.


"Andrews (Edgar) - The second shoe: Man and his mind"

Source: Andrews (Edgar) - Who Made God? Searching For a Theory of Everything, Chapter 16


Author’s Abstract
  1. Chapter Sixteen ... in which we ask a new question, 'What is man?' We focus on the fact that man is the only species that possesses mind — the capacity for thought and self-knowledge. Atheism must interpret mind as the inconsequential by-product of electrical activity in the brain, but we'll see how this leads to an epistemological abyss — the conclusion that all thought is meaningless.
  2. We examine the burgeoning field of evolutionary1 psychology which traces all human behaviour to genetic predestination and eliminates moral responsibility. It's not a pretty sight. Are our brains no more than computers made of meat?
  3. Fortunately, we conclude that mind is more than meat; that it 'rides’ on the physical organ we call the brain in much the same way that the genetic code 'rides' on the chemical structure of DNA. This is exactly what we would expect on the hypothesis of God — for God has a mind without a body and man is made in his image.
  4. New words?2
    • Dualism: The idea that mind and matter (specifically the brain) are distinct and separate realities.
    • Epistemological: Relating to knowledge or thought.
    • Monism: The idea that mind is nothing more than the brain at work.
    • p-n junction: A kind of on-off switch that is basic to the operation of a computer chip.
    • PET imaging: Positron Emission Tomography imaging. A medical scanning technique that produces 3D pictures of functional processes in the body.
    • Reductionism: The view that everything can be explained in terms of naturalistic cause and effect.
    • Vitalism: The idea that living things are imbued with a non-material 'life-force’.



In-Page Footnotes ("Andrews (Edgar) - The second shoe: Man and his mind")

Footnote 2: I note these (as given by the author), not for the usefulness of the definitions, but as an indication of the topics under discussion, and of the low level of education presumed of the reader.


"Andrews (Edgar) - Man and his Maker: Man, morality and redemption"

Source: Andrews (Edgar) - Who Made God? Searching For a Theory of Everything, Chapter 17


Author’s Abstract
  1. Chapter Seventeen ... in which a doll's pram provides the unlikely vehicle for an exploration of man and morality. Like mind, morality and conscience are unique to man and, despite heroic efforts, atheism's attempts to explain them self-destruct in contradictions.
  2. Consistent atheism must deny the very existence of morality and reduce all human behaviour, of whatever kind, to the machinations of selfish genes. Yet atheists continually lay claim to the moral high-ground not realizing that the moral landscape of atheism is as flat as a pancake. Thus Richard Dawkins claims that people can and should be taught to overcome their innate selfishness and behave altruistically. But this is impossible if morality is an illusion, as his world view logically implies.
  3. Turning to the hypothesis of God, we first find a source for morality and then consider its implications — with special emphasis on the effects for human morality of original sin and the Fall of Adam. We'll see the futility of attempting to reform man's fundamental nature by merely commending good behaviour. Our redemption lies not in evolutionary self-improvement, or even in moral teaching, but in rebirth through God's grace and the atoning work of Jesus Christ.
  4. New words?1
    • Altruism: Regard for others as a principle of action.



In-Page Footnotes ("Andrews (Edgar) - Man and his Maker: Man, morality and redemption")

Footnote 1: I note these (as given by the author), not for the usefulness of the definitions, but as an indication of the topics under discussion, and of the low level of education presumed of the reader.


Text Colour Conventions (see disclaimer)
  1. Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2026
  2. Mauve: Text by correspondent(s) or other author(s); © the author(s)


© Theo Todman, June 2007 - March 2026. Please address any comments on this page to theo@theotodman.com. File output:
Website Maintenance Dashboard
Return to Top of this Page Return to Theo Todman's Philosophy Page Return to Theo Todman's Home Page