Accessible Apologetics

BOOK REVIEWS Accessible apologetics my book in response to anyone A review of else’s book” (p. 64). Books-in-reply Who Made God? serve a valuable function, Andrews Searching for a Theory acknowledges, but he believes that a of Everything positive thesis has more appeal than by Edgar Andrews a negative rebuttal. Andrews does a EP Books, Darlington, UK, nice job of balancing both positive 2009 and negative arguments. The result is a readable and witty apologetic for the existence of God. Daniel Davidson Andrews opens with a chapter on the title question: “Who made n 1986, Edgar Andrews (1932–), God?” He critiques this tired atheistic Ithen Professor1 of Materials at the argument as one that assumes what it University of London, participated in needs to prove—that God is subject a famous debate at the Oxford Union to the same laws as the physical in which he and A.E. Wilder-Smith universe. The bulk of the book GHIHQGHGWKHVFLHQWL¿FHYLGHQFHIRU is then devoted to the subtitle’s creation against Richard Dawkins topic—a theory of everything. In the built on the foundation of other and John Maynard Smith. Before the next few chapters, Andrews shoots things that were known previously. audience voted, Dawkins ‘implored’ holes in the idea that science can (If I look at a thermometer and it them not to give a single vote to explain everything. He enters the registers 10°C outside, I know that the creationist side, since every weird world of quantum physics and it is 10°C only because I also know such vote “would be a blot on the string theory, but provides engaging, and believe certain things about how escutcheon of the ancient University layman-friendly explanations each mercury works in thermometers, of Oxford”.2 The Oxford Union was step of the way. Unifying theories leading me to conclude that the hardly sympathetic to the creation explain the world only in the sense thermometer accurately measured position, and, not surprisingly, of providing us with more accurate the temperature.) But we cannot base Dawkins and Maynard Smith won. and more elegant descriptions of how everything we believe on something But (notwithstanding Dawkins’s it works, Andrews says. But even HOVHOHVWZHHQGXSZLWKDQLQ¿QLWH desperate plea) they won by a here, he notes, science is unable to regress. So one of the key projects surprisingly narrow margin, 198–115. provide ultimate answers about why in foundationalist epistemology is After that experience, Dawkins stated the world works the way it does. Nor ¿JXULQJRXWZKDWEHOLHIVDUHSURSHUO\ he would never debate creationists can science provide explanations that basic or foundational. again. But he has not given up his could be described as intuitive or The entire field of classical ¿JKWHYLGHQFHGE\WKHIDFWWKDWKH ‘common sense’. foundationalism has generated continues to publish book after book Let me pause here to pursue a considerable controversy in philo- to defend atheistic evolution. Edgar rabbit trail. In discussing science’s sophical circles for several decades Andrews (now Professor Emeritus) is failure to answer all the questions, now, and certainly the issue of what Andrews says that a good explanation counts as a valid ‘basic’ belief is QRWGRQH¿JKWLQJHLWKHU,QWho Made 3 God?, Andrews joins the debate again, should ultimately be grounded in hotly contested. The bottom line offering an answer to Dawkins and the “premises that are intuitive or self- is that Andrews opens up a can of other ‘new atheists’. evident” (p. 30). This is a relatively worms with his remark about proper minor point in the larger scheme of explanations. He never convinced me the book, but I do feel the need to WKDWLWVKRXOGPDWWHUZKHWKHUVFLHQWL¿F Arguments, positive and quibble with it. With this statement, explanations took us outside the negative Andrews seems to be adopting what realm of ‘common sense’. Nor, for But Who Made God? is not just a philosophers call foundationalist that matter, did he explain why even rebuttal book responding to the latest epistemology. Foundationalist FRXQWHULQWXLWLYHVFLHQWL¿FSULQFLSOHV spate of atheistic rants. Andrews epistemology notes that much of like aspects of quantum mechanics, VSHFL¿FDOO\QRWHV³,GLGQRWZULWH what we say that we ‘know’ is actually could not be basic if they are traced JOURNAL OF CREATION 26(1) 2012 17 Book Reviews back to sense experience. (The concept of irreducible complexity, Andrews also critiques theistic link may be a bit attenuated when most famously championed by evolutionists’ positions. He mentions you’re as far removed from direct Michael Behe as a problem for Francis Collins, who implied in the observation as theoretical physics evolution and an evidence of design.4 title to his best-selling book that is, but at least the argument could Andrews then cites Victor Stenger’s genetics is the “language of God” be made.) Andrews does not address critique of Behe, which “boils down but then adopted an almost perfectly these issues, leaving Andrews’s to asserting that the component parts naturalistic account of genetics in 5 criteria for good explanations as one of the biological systems with which his book. Yet through it all Collins of his weakest points in the book. Behe illustrates his case may already insists that people are unique from Be that as it may, Andrews’ be waiting in the wings—but serving animals in having a spiritual nature. larger point was communicated unrelated purposes” (p. 76). (This Andrews certainly agrees on the latter effectively—science has not answered is not just Stenger’s idea—it is one SRLQWEXWKH¿QGV&ROOLQV¶UHWUHDW all the questions. (And even if you of the most common evolutionist to naturalism problematic, and his assume that string theory helps answer vacillation between naturalism and rejoinders to Behe’s argument.) some questions, as Andrews is willing supernaturalism utterly inconsistent. Andrews offers his own comeback: to do, plenty remains unanswered.) Andrews educates readers about a “Dr. Stenger has obviously Andrews then introduces a hypothesis more biblical philosophy of natural never bought a piece of flat- that he believes really can provide the law and miracles: God does work packed furniture. I can assure him ultimate explanations: the existence providentially through natural law, of God. from personal experience that and natural law is His standard way Andrews takes the reader on a having all the components in one of working in nature. However, God journey through science, looking place and moving them around is not limited by His own usual way at the origin of time, the origin of randomly is most unlikely to RIGRLQJWKLQJV+HFDQRSHUDWHLQDQ VFLHQWL¿FODZVWKHRULJLQRIOLIHDQG assemble anything that works … . out-of-the-ordinary manner (what we Darwinian evolution—all in the light And remember natural selection call a miracle) if He wants to.6 This of his foundational ‘hypothesis’ that cannot help because it only works approach to natural law and miracles the God of the Bible exists. Along the on an already functioning system” is not new. Andrews’ contribution way, Andrews engagingly debunks (pp. 76–77). here is not to add theoretical details to atheistic claims made in recent books This is typical Andrews: this framework but rather to offer one by Dawkins and Victor Stenger and succinctly explaining a complex issue of the most accessible presentations of seems to have great fun doing so. with a memorable and easy-to-grasp this perspective. In one place, Andrews explains the analogy. A caveat Andrews does not specifically address the age of the earth, but KHFOHDUO\DI¿UPVKLVEHOLHILQWKH historical nature of the Genesis account. Given Andrews’ commitment to the historicity of Genesis, and his long advocacy of a ‘young-earth’ view, it comes as something of a surprise that he includes a favourable discussion of the big bang. In recent decades, many apologists have used the big bang to argue that science now provides evidence that the universe KDGDEHJLQQLQJ²WKXVFRQ¿UPLQJ they say, the biblical creation account. Most of these apologists, like William Lane Craig and Norman Geisler, Photo courtesy of Barker Evans Barker of courtesy Photo are comfortable with some sort of Figure 1. The debate chamber of the legendary Oxford Union debating society. It was here, long-age interpretation of Genesis. in 1986, that Edgar Andrews participated in the debate that convinced Richard Dawkins to never debate creationists again. But in his recent book Who Made God?, Andrews continues Adopting a standard big bang the debate with Dawkins in print. cosmology requires not just long 18 JOURNAL OF CREATION 26(1) 2012 Book Reviews ages, but also rearranging expresses appreciation for the ordering of the Genesis the contributions that the 1 creation account (for ID movement has made to instance, the big bang puts the debate, Andrews lists the origin of the sun before several problems with the ID Earth, while Genesis has approach. First, “It embroils it the other way around).7 people in a pointless debate Andrews would seem less over whether or not ID likely to be comfortable is ‘science’” (p. 209). ZLWKWKLVNLQGRIVLJQL¿FDQW Andrews’ view is that “ID reinterpretation of Genesis 1, is an inference drawn from judging from his comments science rather than part of about the historicity of science itself” (p. 209). Genesis elsewhere in this Second, Andrews says, ID book. But somehow the big “lacks any philosophical bang gets Andrews’s stamp bedrock, such as the hy- of approval and figures pothesis of God … . Thus ID prominently in several Photo courtesy of Wikipedia can be accused of adopting chapters of Who Made God? a God-of-the-gaps mentality Figure 2. A bacterial flagellum is a classic example of irreducible Andrews does not elaborate complexity. The flagellum acts like a propeller for the bacteria. Each because it concentrates on on how he harmonizes the basic component of the flagellum is necessary for it to function the intractability of complex big bang with Genesis 1, properly.

Load more