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 , 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 topic—a theory of everything. In the built on the foundation of other and . 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 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. In Who Made God?, Andrews critiques the proposed biological systems while and so we are left in the evolutionary explanation for this kind of biological structure. leaving the rest of the dark about how much of universe to naturalism. This the standard big bang cosmology Andrews instead takes what he narrow focus leaves it vulnerable he would personally endorse (or, calls a ‘hypothetic’ approach. The to such accusations and means conversely, how much of the historical word ‘hypothesis’, Andrews notes, that it is just as compatible with account of Genesis he is willing to is derived from two Greek terms that life from Mars or little green men reinterpret). This is most unfortunate, signify “something ‘placed beneath’ DVZLWKGLYLQHFUHDWLRQ,¿QGWKDW as Andrews is certainly aware of the as a foundation” (p. 53). Andrews rather unsatisfactory” (p. 210). exegetical problems that are created begins with the hypothesis of God The ‘God-of-the-gaps’ when the big bang is imported into and then looks at evidence in light of comment might be a bit too hard on verse 1 of Genesis. KRZZHOOLW¿WVZLWKWKHK\SRWKHVLV ID, for design advocates who argue Starting with the hypothesis of God, based on positive evidence of design The ‘God hypothesis’ Andrews notes, “gives us much (rather than just the implausibility of more freedom to explore the nature evolution) are not actually advocating This significant caveat aside, of God because we can make any a ‘God-of-the-gaps’ position. Still, the rest of the book is outstanding: assumptions we choose concerning Andrews is right that ID is vulnerable faithful to the biblical account, the attributes of God and then see to genuine problems with a ‘God-of- scientifically sophisticated, and where those assumptions take us” the-gaps’ argument.8 winningly presented. Andrews (p. 60). Andrews is unapologetic in was self-conscious in selecting his recognizing the God of Scripture as Conclusion approach, in which he brings out the God he assumes or ‘hypothesizes’ the ‘God hypothesis’ early on. He when looking at nature and the world Andrews has provided us with opted against taking the common around us. DERRNWKDWVNLOOIXOO\XVHVVFLHQWL¿F approach using the design argument apologetics in an accessible and or a cosmological argument, in which easy-to-read format. Andrews is at his Andrews on ID God arrives only at the conclusion EHVWLQH[SODLQLQJGLI¿FXOWVFLHQWL¿F of the scientific and philosophical Andrews thus uses Scripture as concepts in simple terms and down- argumentation. Andrews suggests his reference point for understanding to-earth analogies. His chapters on that this kind of ‘reasoning to God’ who God is, what God is like, and quantum mechanics and string theory often ends up creating some sort of what implications this has for science. are excellent examples. Andrews also ‘lowest-common-denominator’ deity: He explicitly distances himself from sprinkles his text with British humour one who designs or creates, but about the Intelligent Design approach (which, for an American reader, might whose character we know little. to design and evolution. While he take a little getting used to—but only

JOURNAL OF CREATION 26(1) 2012 19 Book Reviews

a little), giving a light feel to this book even when discussing technical Theistic evolutionary topics. Much of this book is also faithful to the historicity of the biblical doublespeak FUHDWLRQDFFRXQW7KHRQO\VLJQL¿FDQW problem in this book is Andrews’s wholesale adoption of big bang A review of cosmology, ignoring the problems The Language of Science this creates for any attempt to take and Faith Genesis as real history. It mars what is by Karl W. Giberson and otherwise an outstanding book. Francis S. Collins InterVarsity Press, 2011 References 1. In the UK and in many Commonwealth countries, ‘Professor’ is a title given only to the highest ranking university academics Lita Cosner (in contrast to the US, where the most junior faculty at a college or university receive the title of ‘assistant professor’). any Christians ask whether it 2. Cooper, G. and Humber, P., Fraudulent Mis possible to accept modern report at AAAS and the 1986 Oxford science while being faithful to the University debate, www.samizdat.qc.ca/ Bible’s teachings on origins. So when cosmos/origines/debate_gc.htm. professing evangelical authors write a 3. Some of the important critiques of classical book that claims to give a biblical take foundationalism have originated from Christian philosophers, notably Alvin on the issue, it is sure to be popular. Plantinga. See the essays in Plantinga, Unfortunately, The Language of A. and Wolterstorff, N. (Eds.), Faith and Science and Faith hits a lot of sour Rationality, University of Notre Dame notes in their attempt to reconcile Press, Notre Dame, 1983. For an accessible This attitude toward creationist summary, see Naugle, D., Alvin Plantinga’s modern science and biblical faith. This Christians is also evident in how Reformed Epistemology: Analysis and should surprise no readers familiar they are characterized throughout the &ULWLTXHSDSHUSUHVHQWHGDWWKH6RXWKZHVW with their previous works.1,2 Commission on Religious Studies, Dallas, book. For instance, the authors show TX, March 18–19, 1994, available at www3. contempt for creation views by citing dbu.edu/naugle/pdf/Plantinga_Reformed_ Stereotyping creation theologians and scientists for pro- Epistemology.pdf. The authors adopt a paternal- evolution views, but characterizing 4. A biological structure is irreducibly complex istic, condescending tone toward creationist views with straw men if every component part of the structure is and lay people. For instance, the necessary for its functioning—remove one creationists very early in the book, component and the structure is useless. presuming to lecture the reader about DXWKRUVFLWH%%:DU¿HOG¶VYLHZ³, In principle, such a structure could not be what they must and must not accept. do not think that there is any general created by a gradual process of natural They tell the reader in no uncertain statement in the Bible or any part of selection. See Behe, M., Darwin’s Black the account of creation … that need Box, Free Press, New York, 1996. terms that “there are truths about the natural world that must be confronted, be opposed to evolution.” But for a 5. See also Weinberger, L., Harmony and discord: A review of The Language of God no matter how disturbing they seem” creationist view, they cite the wife by Francis S. Collins, J. Creation 21(1): (p. 8). Moreover, “[t]he Bible is of the bishop of Worcester, England: 33–37, 2007. not a science text and should not “Descended from the apes? My dear, 6. See also Sarfati, J., Miracles and science, be read that way” (p. 106) and the let us hope it is not true. But if it is, creation.com/miracles, 1 September 2006. biblical authors “all lived before let us pray that it will not become 7. See the critique offered by Henry, J., there was science” (p. 107). The tone widely known” (p. 42). This is only Christian apologists should abandon the big is condescening. The result is both one example of a tendency that holds bang, J. Creation 23(3):103–109, 2009. simplistic and insufficient to deal throughout the whole book. But had 8. See Weinberger, L., Whose god? The theological response to the god-of-the-gaps, with the concerns of those who have they wanted to be fair to the creation J. Creation 22(1):120–127, 2008. considered the issues at length and view, they could have cited respected have come to a different conclusion theologians like Edward Young, who from that of the authors. said:

20 JOURNAL OF CREATION 26(1) 2012