|
Who made God?Science says ‘God’WHO MADE GOD? As the threadbare poverty of secularism becomes ever more apparent in the broken society it has produced in our land, the debate over the existence of God has heated up. We should not see this so much as a threat, but as an opportunity for the gospel. A major obstacle to people considering Christian faith is the unfounded assumption that science does away with the need for God. This book, by a very eminent scientist, Emeritus Professor of Materials at the University of London, tackles that assumption with clarity, wit and deep erudition. His approach is to adopt the scientific method of setting up a hypothesis and then exploring how that hypothesis and its ramifications compare with the reality of the world around us. Which matches the data of our existence better: the atheistic assumption that there is no Creator, or the hypothesis of the existence of the Christian God? Drawing from logical arguments and experimental facts from a number of scientific disciplines, Professor Andrews produces an overwhelming case for the God of the Bible. If you enjoy reading popular science mixed with dry humour and a few slices of irony, you will find this book a treat. It is full of interesting facts (especially from cosmology, thermodynamics, information theory and biology) and packed with examples where the foggy thinking of macroevolution (yes, and mere intelligent design and theistic evolution) is blown away. One stand-out example of this is, quoting from recent published research papers, that light is shed on the facts concerning beneficial mutations of the DNA molecule which are the key to neo-Darwinism. Andrews shows us papers which confess that such mutations occur so seldom in reality as to be ‘almost inaccessible’ for systematic study and that the ‘absence of experimental data’ means that the behaviour of beneficial mutations has to be inferred from that of the much more frequent deleterious mutations. According to Andrews, it seems that those enamoured with Darwinian theory simply allow themselves to get carried away, ignoring the actual data. The reality is that the experimental evidence for these essential beneficial mutations is so thin as to be almost transparent — in other words we ought to be able to see through it. John Benton© Evangelicals Now - March 2010 |