’Who Made God?’ By Edgar Andrews: Chapter One

In Professor Edgar Andrews’s book, Who Made God, the goal is not to refute atheistic assertions, but to develop a theory of everything (p. 10).  This envelops both the material and non-material aspects of the universe.  Who Made God? is repeatedly asked by Richard Dawkins in his book The God Delusion.  Who made God have been the atheist’s most frequent philosophical weapon and objection to the existence of God.  

Professor Andrews addresses the argument that “man made God” is actually the polar opposite of what Christians assert to be true.  But then the professor asks, “if we made God, who made us? (p. 17)”  Scott Adams said that evolution isn’t a cause of anything, it is categorizing, and observation, and it doesn’t deal with the cause of who made us.  Then you could say, “if evolution made us, who made evolution” (p. 18)? The atheist might answer, “everything around us”, to which we could ask,  “who made everything? (p. 18)”  This is like the circular, never ending cycle, which is what is called Tautology.  Whatever A makes, say, B, then A must be greater (p. 19).  Professor Andrews uses the example that Beethoven was greater than his composition.  

Another way to look at this “who made” circular tautological is like his wife making a cake.  The cake is eaten and then gone, and ceases to exist. The wife is greater than the cake and continues to exist, thus, the wife is greater than her creation, the cake.  What continues to exist and what created therefore must be greater than that which is created.

Even Dawkins argued that a God who made a hugely complex universe must be more complex than His creation (p. 19). The Probability Theory is a branch of mathematics using numbers (e.g., the probability of having a coin toss land heads or tails an “x” number of times). The probability is graphed on an X-Y graph with a curve charting the probabilities of a particular sequence (p. 20).  Professor Andrews has successfully debunked the Probability Theory as “nothing of the real world” (p.20).  

In chapter six of my own book, Blind Chance or Intelligent Design, I stated that chance has no power to produce an effect or be a cause.  I pointed out that we could say that there is a 30 percent chance of rain.  But the probability of the chance for rain did not actually cause it to rain or affect the atmospheric conditions to make it rain or create rain showers.  The “chance” of rain is powerless against the environmental facts contributing to the causes of the precipitation.

Professor Andrews clarifies this by saying that the claim that anything must happen by chance if you wait long enough, is based on the idea that “…no mathematically possible even has zero probability” (p. 20). Dawkins ignores this fact in one of his other books, Climbing Mount Improbable.  He hails the astronomical probabilities as confirmation of the probable outcome.  He ignores the fact that chance is a non-event, a non-material catalyst; it is a non-factor and can not be said to be a cause of anything.

In the Science of Thermodynamics, its statistical probabilities of spontaneous events Dawkins uses as a causative force.  He equates the statistical probabilities of spontaneous events as related mathematically, to the degree of order or complexity in the system (p. 22).  Low complexity requires high entropy or randomness, while high complexity of necessarily requires low entropy or randomness.  Professor Andrews uses the example of a china bowl being dropped and shattering as becoming less ordered.  

If you collect these shattered pieces on the floor and drop them again, will they become more complex or more ordered?  No.  To make the shattered bowl more ordered requires “…more directed energy input and intelligent effort; therefore, “It could never happened on its own“(p. 23).  Dawkins, conversely, believes that it could, apparently, and this flies in the face of the Science of Thermodynamics.  Low complexity can be served by randomness, e.g., 6 dice dropped on the floor can for a circle.  High complexity “…has a negligible probability of occurring accidentally or spontaneously” (p. 23).

The universe, all physical matter, “…represents a highly improbable arrange of matter and energy, an extremely improbable arrangement” (p. 23).  Professor Andrews continues by saying, “The Laws of fundamental constants of nature give every appearance of being fine tuned to permit the existence of intelligence life on earth (known as the Anthropic Principle)” (p. 23). Like the china bowl being repaired is highly improbable because of its uniquely formed” (p. 24).

Then, what of the statement, “God must have a cause?”  We are then assuming that there is no spiritual or non-physical realm, which is impossible to prove (p. 25). Its like saying, “How long is a piece of string?”  The question is which piece of string do you mean?  Professor Andrews concludes in chapter one by saying, “There can be no logical answer for an illogical question” (p. 26). The question then becomes “Who created the uncreated one” (p. 26)?  

Albert Einstein succinctly stated that, “There are only two ways that you can live.  One is as if nothing is a miracle. The other is as if everything is a miracle.   I believe in the latter”.  Professor Andrews leads us into chapter two, which is next in this series, by an axiomatic statement: “Science can describe the fundamental structures of matter, energy, space, and time but can hardly be said to explain them”(p. 27).  

Professor Emeritus of the University of London, Edgar Andrews.  Who Made God? EP Books, Darlington, England. Copyright, 2009. ISBN-13 (978-0-85234-707-2)

Be First to Comment

  1. PaulBurnett said:

    Edgar Andrews is not a scientist by any stretch. He was the first President of the “Biblical Creation Society” which is a young earth creationist organization – see http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/ Jack, if you want to discuss science here, please quote some actual scientists. If you just want to discuss the scientific illiteracy and willful ignorance of creationism, keep up with the quotes from creationists.

    August 27, 2010
  2. said:

    Thank you for your comment Mr. Burnett. I must say that I visited the website and it was fantastic. I encourage others to do the same. I am not saying, nor did I say that Professor Andrews is a scientist, nor that I intend to discuss science per say. I am simply reviewing the book “Who Made God?” by Professor Edgar Andrews. I am sorry if it offended you. This is only an initial installment of a series I plan on doing on this book. It is not an attempt to delve into science, as I myself have done with other articles on my other writings on other various other websites and in my book, “Blind Chance or Intelligent Design?’. Nonetheless, I appreciate your feedback, albeit negative. This book by Professor Andrews is in response to Richard Dawkins and some of his remarks from his books and addresses his question of who made god? You are free to quote scientists if you so desire, but that is not my express intent here. Stay tuned. The First Amendment in action.

    August 27, 2010
  3. said:

    Upon further investigation, the distinguished Professor Edgar Andrews, BSc, PhD, DSc, FIM, CEng, CPhys, is Emeritus Professor of Material Science in the University of London, having retired in September 1998. So, he was no scientist? BSc means Bachelor of Science DSc means Doctor of Science

    August 27, 2010
  4. Duderman said:

    “The universe, all physical matter, “…represents a highly improbable arrange of matter and energy, an extremely improbable arrangement” (p. 23). ” As this is the only universe we have direct evidence of, the probability of it’s existence is 1:1. The mathematical probabilities that people like Edwards, Dembski, and Berlinski try to sell are based on the idea that there is one and only one chance of life happening via natural processes (or the universe forming as it is) in all of time. Any layperson with an open mind can see the flaw in that reasoning and mathematicians have clearly identified the flaws for anyone interested in reading about the truth.

    August 27, 2010
  5. PaulBurnett said:

    Like many other creationist ex-scientists (Johnathon Wells, Guillermo Gonzalez, Michael Behe, etc.) it would be safe to presume that Andrews’ output of actual peer-reviewed science articles dropped to near zero following his leaving the pursuit of actual science and going over to creationism. But I won’t have time to check for a few days. Does anybody if there is a fixed demarcation between Andrews’ science publications and creationism publications? It’s really unusual for folks to produce meaningful work in both camps simultaneously.

    August 27, 2010

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *