WHAT IS MAN? Adam, Alien or Ape?

by Edgar Andrews

In 1906, American humorist Mark Twain published a sixty-page essay entitled “What is man?” Consisting of an interminable dialogue between a senior citizen (who believes that man is just a machine) and a young man (who believes nothing in particular but is open to persuasion), it wasn’t one of his finest books. But at least he tried. Authors since then seem to have avoided the subject like the plague, often tackling the respective roles of men and women in society but seldom asking deeper questions about what it means to be human. When the psalmist asked, “What is man?” (Psalm 8 v.4) he was, I think, seeking an altogether more profound answer.

Avoidance of the subject is all the more strange because there has never been a time like our own when curiosity about human origins and destiny has been greater, or the answers on offer more hotly disputed. It’s a safe bet that any attempt to give the “big picture” on the origin, nature and specialness of mankind will be contentious —which might explain why writers have generally fought shy of it. Yet at heart it is the question most of us really do want answered, because the answer defines that precious thing we call our identity, both personally and as a race.

The Psalmist did, of course, offer his own answer three millennia ago. Man, he claimed, was created by God for a clearly defined purpose — to exercise dominion over planet earth and (by implication) to ultimately share something of the glory of the divine nature. The rest, as they say, is history, but it’s not a happy tale. As Mark Twain says in another essay; “I can’t help being disappointed with Adam and Eve”. Not surprisingly, then, a large proportion of humanity today are looking for alternative solutions, accepting the challenge of the Psalmist’s question without embracing the optimism of his answer.

In this book we are going to consider the alternative solutions on offer by considering what it means to be human against the backgrounds of cosmology (man’s place in the universe), biology (man’s place in the animal kingdom), and psychology (man’s consciousness and mind). Finally, we return to the biblical context, arguing that the Psalmist got it right after all.

Don’t let the science-sounding stuff put you off. Like its popular prequel, “Who made God? Searching for a theory of everything”, this book is written with a light touch in a reader-friendly and often humorous style. It is intended specifically for the non-expert, with homely verbal illustrations designed to explain and unpack the technicalities for the lay-person. As Dr. Paul Copan (Pledger Family Chair of Philosophy and Ethics, Palm Beach Atlantic University) says, "Edgar Andrews has a way of making the profound accessible. His scholarship informs the reader about key questions of our time, offering wise guidance and illumination."

340 pages, Paperback

Published May 2, 2018

About the author

Edgar Harold Andrews is an English physicist and Bible-teacher. He is Emeritus Professor of Materials at Queen Mary, University of London and co-pastor of the Campus Church, Welwyn Garden City, UK..

Professionally, he holds a BSc degree in theoretical physics at the University of London (1953), a PhD in applied physics (1960), and a DSc (higher doctorate) in physics (1968).
He is a Fellow of the Institute of Physics (FInstP), Fellow of the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining (FIMMM), Chartered Engineer (CEng, UK) and Chartered Physicist (CPhys).

Andrews is an international expert on the science of polymers (large molecules) and was a Consultant to the Dow Chemical Company, USA, for over 30 years, and to the 3M Company, USA, for 20 years.

He has written extensively on the subject of the Bible and science, including the books "God, science and evolution", "Christ and the cosmos", "Who made God? Searching for a theory of everything" and "What is Man? Adam, alien or ape?".

He has also written "The Spirit has come" (a survey of the Bible's teaching on the Holy Spirit) and two read-like-a-book Bible Commentaries, "Free in Christ" (Galatians) and "A glorious High Throne" (Hebrews).

Reviews

[Neal Bringe · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dr. Andrews reviewed the leading arguments of secular thinkers and illustrates the hopelessness of their attempts to leave God out of the picture - offering no ultimate explanations, only scientific and philosophical blind alleys. He maintains that “working on the evidence provided by secular science, it allows us to build a case for creation that cannot be dismissed out of hand by skeptics. … Purely secular thinking can lead unexpectedly to ‘the necessity of God.’” His research fills a gap in the popular press because it does not leave one hanging. After explaining the worldviews at war, he resolves the void by providing answers, the truths and evidences contained in scripture, “known to be genuine and dateable historical documents.” Made in the image of God, man shares communicable characteristics of God. These were considered under the headings: soul and spirit, language and logic, creativity and competence, and law and love. Jesus alone was the perfect man and when He returns, those that believe in Him will be changed to be like Him and will be forever with Him in the new Heavens and Earth where righteousness dwells. Amen!

[Clinton Wilcox · Rating 3 out of 5]

Edgar Andrews’ book, What is Man? Adam, Alien, or Ape? is a well-written book exploring the nature of man and his relationship to nature, the cosmos, and God. Andrews is a physicist who excels at writing accessibly so that laymen, as well as experts, can understand the concepts that he addresses. For concepts that are more technical, he will often use an analogy to help illustrate the concept. Andrews is pretty thorough in his examination, taking the assumptions of evolution, and even evolution, itself, to task with arguments that show the evidence for Darwinistic evolution is not as secure as evolutionists would have us believe. And he’s usually fair in his critiques, such as pointing out that although there have been many hoaxes for alleged “missing links” down throughout the years, this, itself, does not disprove the possibility that there are missing links to be found.

Unfortunately I do have more negatives to say than positives about the book, but I wanted to start out with the positives. It is very well-written. The chapter sections are small and easily digestible, and written in an informal way that won’t take you long to get through. Being a physicist, himself, he is clearly knowledgeable in the field and is able to speak as an expert when he argues against the ideas of other physicists, such as when they defend Darwinian evolution or the multiverse theory. If you are not well-versed in these areas, you will definitely learn a lot from reading Andrews’ book.

Now for the negatives regarding his book. There are a few areas I could nitpick. For one thing, he often uses Wikipedia and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as his sources, and even in some cases, his sources are 30 years old. For example, on page 165, he quotes a text from 1980 to bolster a claim that most hominid fossils are merely fragments of jaws and scraps of skulls. But couldn’t there have been discoveries since then that discount this claim? So many of his claims aren’t sourced the best that they could be, so some might reasonable question the accuracy of his claims.

Additionally, some of his conclusions are dubious. One example is on page 108 in which he responds to David Deutsch’s multiverse idea by claiming that it dehumanizes man. If you there are a possibly infinite number of you among a possibly infinite number of universes, there is no real you because all these “yous” are equally real. But this conclusion simply doesn’t follow. If all of these “yous” are equally real, then all would have identity as “you”. If there are an innumerable amount of David Deutsch’s, then each David Deutsch would really be David Deutsch, by from a different universe. Just as David Deutsch is real here, David Deutsch from Universe A is equally real in his own universe. They would not be the same individual but they are both real. A multiverse theory would not dehumanize man.

Another dubious conclusion he draws is in his chapter on philosophy of identity. When he tries to justify his view on substance dualism and get around the interaction problem (the problem of how an immaterial mind can interact with material objects), his response is simply “just because we cannot explain something doesn’t mean it can’t happen”. He does state there is evidence that there is evidence that the immaterial mind can affect the material brain, but provides no defense that it is possible other than evidence that it actually happens. However, earlier in the chapter (pp. 191-193) Andrews interacts with an idea he calls emergent dualism, in which the mind emerged from the brain by an evolutionary surge due to the obtaining of opposable thumbs. Andrews responds to this by claiming that the interaction problem, as he says, is “one of the strongest arguments used against dualism” and then offers no reason to prefer substance dualism (what he claims is the Biblical view) over this emergent dualism. The emergent dualist can simply echo Andrews’ claim that just because they can’t explain how this emergent mind can interact with the brain doesn’t mean it can’t happen. Why should someone reject emergent dualism in favor of substance dualism? Andrews doesn’t say.

The biggest criticisms I have are regarding Andrews’ misuse of philosophy. I’ve often stated against atheistic scientists that they shouldn’t try to argue philosophy. Just because they are trained and specialize in science doesn’t make them an authority on fields outside science. Unfortunately Andrews tries to make philosophical claims and shows that he doesn’t have the requisite philosophical knowledge. Andrews starts off in his preface by making a weird claim, that since Mark Twain published an essay in 1906, authors since then have avoided this topic like the plague. But this clearly isn’t true. Jeff McMahan’s The Ethics of Killing is a monumental philosophical work in which he spends many pages trying to pinpoint the nature of man. Reasons and Persons by Derek Parfit is also considered an important work on what the nature of humanity is. There has been a lot of work done in the 20th century by philosophers examining what man is.

Andrews also misunderstands Aristotle. On pages 217-218, he claims that Aristotle argued that the physical universe is eternal and, therefore, has no need for a creator. He reasoned that the universe could not have had a physical cause and therefore had no physical creator, then concluded from this that it had no cause at all because it had no beginning. This is only part of the story, however. It is true that Aristotle argued that the physical universe was eternal. However, he did not argue that this implied that there was no Creator, simply that there was no physical Creator. In fact, in Aristotle’s book Metaphysics, he reasons that all things, including the universe, are in motion. Anything that is in motion is set in motion by another. As there cannot be an infinite regression of causes, there must have been a Prime Mover at the beginning of this chain to set it all in motion. This Prime Mover is what we Christians would call God. Andrews read Aristotle’s view that the universe is eternal and concluded that Aristotle must have not believed in God. It certainly is the case that Aristotle rejected the Greek pantheon of gods, but he did not reject the concept of a god altogether. He reasoned that even though the universe is eternal, it still needed a Prime Mover to set and keep the universe in motion. Contrary to modern thinking, Aristotle was not working backward, as William Lane Craig’s Kalam Cosmological Argument does. Aristotle was working horizontally – in the same way that a golfer’s golf swing hits the ball in one fluid motion, there is still a beginning in that sequence of events to set it all in motion (e.g. the club hit the ball, the hand moved the club, the arm moved the hand, the nerves moved the arm, the brain moved the nerves, etc.). This is the idea that Aristotle had of the Prime Mover. Even if the universe is eternal, it required a Prime Mover to set it in motion and to keep it in motion.

The last bit of Andrews’ book that I take issue with is his objection to hylemorphism, which is understood about as well as he understood Aristotle. Andrews prefers the substance dualism of Descartes, but doesn’t really explain it very well. When I read his section of substance dualism, I really went away from it thinking there wasn’t anything there that a hylemorphist couldn’t agree with. Hylemorphism is the idea that a human person is an irreducible composite of matter and form, matter being the material stuff you are made from (for humans, it’s their flesh; for a marble statue, it’s the marble; etc.), and the form is your essence or nature, the thing that grounds your ultimate capacities and makes you what you are (for humans, it’s the form of human; for balls, it’s the form of ball, etc.). The matter and form both determine your capacities. There is more to it, as Aristotle taught that apart from the material and formal cause, there is also the efficient and final cause. The efficient cause of human beings is our parents, and our final cause is the purpose for which we are created. For the Christian, a human being’s final cause is something like to worship God. Andrews doesn’t consider the efficient and final causes in his criticism, only the material and formal causes. Hylemorphism also avoids the hard problem because one’s physical aspect (one’s matter) and one’s immaterial aspect (one’s form) are intimately connected. If you think of a rubber ball, it can bounce because it is made of rubber. It can also roll down a steep hill because it is in the form of a ball. Nothing immaterial must act on the ball to make it roll down, it simply rolls down because it is a ball. So hylemorphism has an advantage over Cartesian Dualism in that it avoids the interaction problem altogether. You don’t have to skirt around it like Andrews does.

But what are Andrews’ arguments against hylemorphism? His first criticism is that hylemorphism only applies to physical objects in space and time, so it can’t account for how the mind (the immaterial self) can become the form of the physical brain so as to integrate soul and body into a single entity. But Andrews is mistaking the form of the human for the mind. The mind is not the form of a human. The mind is how we interpret our physical experiences but it is not only what makes me “me”. I have existed since I came into existence at fertilization; that’s when I took on the form of man, as the form of a thing is not simply the appearance it takes on but its underlying nature. Body and soul are intimately connected. What grounds my identity is the fact that I am biologically connected to myself at all times, not psychologically connected to myself (as many property dualists assert).

His second criticism is hylemorphism makes the mind simply another aspect of the “furniture” of one’s “house” (the body). You are not an individual who occupies the body, so this is something that no theist should accept. But here, Andrews makes the same mistake as in the prior criticism -- there is no problem accepting that the mind is just another piece of the bodily “furniture” since my mind is not me. I am a soul-body composite -- I am not a mind-body composite.

Andrews’ third criticism is that hylemorphism says that as our mind is integrated with our body, the two cannot become separate. A body can exist without a mind but a mind cannot exist without a body. Yet the Bible teaches that we can exist in a disembodied state. So if the body and mind are inseparable, hylemorphism cannot be maintained by a Christian. Aside from still making the same mistake about the mind being “me”, there is no reason to assume from hylemorphism that a mind can’t exist without a body. Certainly, there are hylemorphists who believe that the soul cannot be separate from the body so when we die, we will “sleep” until the final resurrection. But there are other hylemorphists, such as myself, who believe that the soul can be separated from the body, even if hylemorphism is true. It’s simply not the case that hylemorphism teaches minds cannot exist independent of a body. There is no reason to think that immaterial forms cannot exist. In fact, Aristotle certainly believed in immaterial forms because forms, of their very nature, are immaterial. The form of “humanity” is abstract until an individual takes on that form, giving it concreteness. So forms can exist apart from a physical body, and that means that when a human dies, the soul can be separated from the body in a disembodied state. But it’s a state of mutilation, one in which humans are not meant to exist. This is still compatible with Christianity, as Christianity teaches that there will be a final resurrection in which each person’s soul is reunited with his body.

Andrews’ arguments against hylemorphism clearly miss the mark, leaving hylemorphism still a live option that Christians can adopt if they believe that’s where the evidence leads. Again, Andrews’ book is brought down by a poor understanding of the philosophical claims he attempts to address. But I still believe his book is worth taking a look at for the scientific discussion about how man may or may not come about.

[Bob · Rating 3 out of 5]

Summary: An exploration of the answers different worldviews come up with to the question of what it means to be human, making the case for a Christian view of humans descended from a historical Adam who was created in God's image, through whom sin entered the human race in the fall, and for the redemption of all who believe through the second Adam, Jesus Christ.

The question of who we are, and our place on Earth and in the cosmos, is perhaps one of the most important questions that we face. The author of this work, Edgar Andrews, an emeritus professor of Materials Science, looks at three of the possible answers on offer today--that we are evolved from the family of Apes, that we (or our predecessors) arrived here from an alien world, or that we were created by God, descended from a historic Adam.

The book consists of three parts. The first considers our place in the cosmos, and perhaps did we come from somewhere else? He considers the origins of the cosmos, and whether it is possible for the cosmos to be self-generating and he describes the search for extra-terrestrial life and the absence of any substantive finding, albeit many worlds have been identified that may be candidates for such life. He lays out a form of the "fine-tuned universe" argument advanced by Sir Martin Rees, and the counter explanations of multiverse theories. All of this suggests at very least that our existence in the cosmos may be a fairly singular event begging explanation.

The second part of the book explores man and the biosphere, that is, evolutionary explanations for our origins. He raises a number of questions about our descent from the apes in terms of the distinctiveness as opposed to the commonality of our respective genomes and he contends that paleontology has very little conclusive to tell us about our forebears. Finally, in one of the more fascinating chapters of the book, he discusses the challenging question of how human consciousness is to be explained. Using the analogy of a house, he discusses materialist, epiphenomenalist, and dualist explanations and contends that humans were created with material bodies and a nonmaterial, self-aware mind.

In part three, Andrews considers the biblical account of what it means to be human. Beginning with a discussion of worldview, and how we know what is real, he contends that the Biblical account warrants belief as being consistent with our understanding of ourselves and the cosmos, has made accurate predictions of future events, passes tests of historical accuracy, and leads people into transformative experiences of God through faith in Christ. The remainder of the book then unpacks this Biblical world view of a sovereign and immanent creator God, human sin, accountability, and the person and work of Christ. He argues for a historic Adamic couple from whom we are all descended, against other explanations of our progenitors, and what it means for us to be in the image of God distinguished as creatures of soul and spirit, language and logic, creativity and competence, and law and love. The book then concludes with two chapters on Christ as the second Adam and the evidences for Christ's resurrection, and the implications of this truth for our salvation and eternal destiny.

Andrews writes about fairly technical scientific material in clear, and sometimes witty, language, using readily understood analogies. I find it a bit puzzling that he at times uses scientific arguments (the Big Bang and Fine-Tuning) to advance his argument and then turns around and is utterly skeptical and questioning about anything to do with the evolution of human beings. I would have liked to see more engagement with scientists like Francis Collins, who not only see God's design in the human genome, but also do not see evolution as antithetical to the creative work of God, or even a historic Adam. 

Rather than attacking evolution, I think it would have been more helpful to attack the underlying worldview of evolutionism, a worldview that assumes there is nothing more or other than the material world, and that only what may be confirmed empirically is real or true (of course this statement itself cannot be confirmed by such means!). Such assumptions not only preclude the activity of God in creating but also in sustaining the world. There are many who study evolution who see the hand of God at work, as they do in other "natural" processes. Andrews seems to suggest they have to choose between their science and their faith. 

Nevertheless, this book addresses an important question, and eloquently describes the human dignity we enjoy as creatures in the image of God, and the wonder of Christ's redemptive work, and the joyful destiny of those who partake of his redemptive work and the power of the resurrection in salvation, Christ's living rule over his people, and the certainty of his return. Christian teachers and apologists will find this helpful--particularly, I think the discussions about fine-tuning, and about human consciousness as well as his delineation of what it means to say we exist in "the image of God."

____________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review. The opinions I have expressed are my own.

[Alfonso Alvarez · Rating 5 out of 5]

Who made God: Searching for a theory of everything
and What is Man? Adam, alien or ape?

I can safely say that if I wanted to have a really interesting dinner conversation, I would most definitely include Dr. Edgar Andrews on my guest list - a must attend, mind you.

Reading his two books that somehow fit together has afforded me with a good view of his thoughts and his interesting character that make me want to listen to him more, not just to be better informed, but to also be entertained with his brand of humor.

I've always enjoyed the dry, Brit wit and Dr. Andrews takes it to a higher level to include sharp, though careful and courteous as well. The other author that does this for me isn't British. He's an American mathematician living in Paris and the author of one of my other favorite books - the Devil's Delusion - and this is Dr. David Berlinski.

Dr. Berlinski's humor though, is less charitable, yet amusing nonetheless.

The two books by Dr. Andrews have kept me chuckling in public places, causing people to take a look at what I was reading to try and understand why I was so unabashedly tickled by what I was reading. Yet, when asked about the books contents, I get strange looks for laughing at what are serious subjects.

Which is what the two books contain, in the first place.

I always stress to my friends that these books don't contain the conclusive answers to the profound questions that have been asked time and again over generations. But the answers that Dr. Andrews presents makes for the most sensible view, given the data available.

But it's done in such a way that makes for light, friendly reading of the robust arguments - scientific and theological - of these profound subjects.

“Who Made God?” is a compressed textbook on the argument for intelligent design. Without his intending to do so, Dr. Andrews makes the case being presented by a great many author scientists including William Dembski, Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, Guillermo Gonzales and a lot more – PhDs all, and good ones at that. Yet, Dr. Andrews fascinates the reader with his very friendly approach, making the rigorous concepts so much easier to understand – yet provoke you enough to keep thinking long after putting the book down. He also goes beyond basic ID by boldly identifying the designer as the God of the Bible.

I will concede that it requires a bit more than the usual concentration to remain focused and processing all that available information in my mind while reading the book. But having already read the other authors previously, the book refreshes the mind with concepts long since stored away, yet made clearer because of a careful explanation that makes them so much easier to comprehend.

The sum of the matters discussed in “What is Man?” can be distilled into this question – what makes man unique? Following an introductory survey of the issues dealt with in the book, the first two sections deal with scientific theories of human origins that challenge the scriptural narrative, yet fall short of providing a better alternative. When the book gets to the chapter on “The Image of God”, I am delighted to find yet another gem of a discussion of how man is granted the “image and likeness of God”, as I had previously discovered another way of appreciating it in N.T. Wright’s “How God became King”.

Here, Dr. Andrews demonstrates the clear distinctions of Homo sapiens’ superiority over the rest of the animal kingdom and the reasons for it. I particularly point to the part where he says: “ So in seeking to understand what it means that humans bear the image of God, I’m going to consider four duplex attributes, to which I will attach easily remembered names. They are (1) soul and spirit, (2) language and logic,(3) creativity and competence and (4) law and love.”

And he proceeds to elaborate carefully and clearly.

The two books are best described by him as “two well fitting shoes that belong together.” And I most definitely agree. One book addresses the matter of man being the mere “outcome of chance chemistry and random mutation” and the other one addresses the problem of man as “an intelligent and moral being, made in the image and likeness of God”.

To read the two books completes the panoramic view of the entire subject matter that has been brought up in questions since time immemorial. Each one by itself can stand on its own, yet together, they make for a complete and fulfilling read.

Any intelligent lay person would enjoy these books and I highly recommend them as suitable choices for their libraries.

There's really something to be said about PhDs in mathematics and other sciences, writing books on these subjects. These two tomes are a great contribution by an Emeritus Professor in Materials Science, holding PhD and DSc degrees in Physics and having a good grasp of theology and philosophy as well.

I wouldn't know if my other dinner guests in my imagination would enjoy the conversations that could ensue, having Dr. Andrews as one of the participants at my imaginary table, but I know that at the very least, they'd be very provoked into thinking about what they believed in and why.

[Mark Riser · Rating 5 out of 5]

“What is man that You remember him…” (Ps. 8:4a, HCSB) the Psalmist asks. Professor Edgar Andrews asks and answers this very question in his newest book What Is Man? Adam, Alien or Ape?
Dr. Edgar Andrews holds a Ph.D. and DSc. in Physics and is Emeritus Professor of Materials Science at the University of London. He serves as a pastor and has written eight other books, including Who Made God? Searching for a Theory of Everything. What Is Man? It is a continuation of the questions begun in his previous work.
Andrews begins by suggesting that there are three options for answering his titular question. First, man is created in the image of God, or Adam. Second, man is an alien, one of many intelligent life-forms in the universe whose origins may not be confined to Earth. Lastly, man is simply a highly evolved animal, or ape. He begins with these answers because, as he notes, “our origins ultimately determine who and what we are.” He then proceeds to take the reader back to the beginning of the universe to say that the universe was a purposeful creation. As such, the universe is fine-tuned in its constants and quantities to allow for the existence of biological life. This is a familiar argument to design. Professor Andrews takes his readers from the “biggest to the smallest,” from the universe to DNA to show that man, while being an animal is something more. Man possesses, he writes, a “spiritual mind” which is different from his physical brain, as a result of being created in the image of God. This leads to the account of Adam and Eve and the biblical worldview that they are the first pair of humans, a view which Andrews accepts. The Genesis narrative tells of man’s creation in God’s image and Fall, through those first two humans. Jesus Christ, the God-man, came to redeem sinful man through His death and resurrection so that, for those who trust in Him, “human destiny will be realized and fulfilled.”
Dr. Andrews delves into several questions which have been in the popular mind lately. He reviews current theories on the multiverse, or MV, which suggest that there are multiple universes which exist, the implication of which is that a life-permitting universe such as ours is just a bit of luck. After evaluating each major multiverse theory, he suggests that they are “mirages masquerading as science.” Andrews also evaluates the contention that human DNA is 98 percent identical with the chimpanzee. He, through examining the scientific literature, finds that while gene similarities are used as an argument for common descent, random mutations are insufficient to produce a complex species while other branches of that evolutionary tree remain static.
Professor Andrews writes about subjects of science and subjects of faith in a readable style as though he is discussing these complex subjects with you. He reviews complex scientific concepts thoroughly with explanations and analogies which make them understandable for the lay reader. Andrews’ work is valuable for the person interested in both science and apologetics.
I highly recommend Professor Andrews’ book What Is Man?

[Richard M · Rating 5 out of 5]

Richard Evans - Director, Southwest Dallas Reasonable Faith Chapter writes;

"I highly recommend Dr. Andrew's book, What is Man? Adam, Alien, or Ape? As a scientist, he is extraordinarily qualified to find scientific flaws in attacks directed at the Christian worldview, and does so. He has two doctorates, has obtained the highest level of membership in the Institute of Physics and other prestigious organizations, and has written over a hundred scientific research papers. Yet, he writes clearly to the average person as well as other scientists. Laymen and intellectuals will appreciate and understand his message. For example, many of us have heard the claim that science has shown that there could not have been a single Adam and Eve. Dr. Andrews points out the assumptions which are made which lead to this claim. He shows how these assumptions have not been demonstrated. He also points out that the Theory of Evolution is based on those assumptions NOT being true. As he says, you can't have it both ways. In his chapter Dem Dry Bones, he has the reader assume that he/she has discovered an ancient fossil and wants to present it to the world. The formidable problems of dating the fossil and placing it correctly in a line with other fossils are amazing, and seldom discussed in the mass media stories about such events. You will also appreciate his definition of "historical narrative". This book will give you powerful support when defending Christianity against questionable and false claims. If you are looking for a book for yourself, or a Christmas present for someone else, I highly recommend What is Man by Dr. Andrews.

[Richard M · Rating 5 out of 5]

Richard Evans - Director, Southwest Dallas Reasonable Faith Chapter writes;

"I highly recommend Dr. Andrew's book, What is Man? Adam, Alien, or Ape? As a scientist, he is extraordinarily qualified to find scientific flaws in attacks directed at the Christian worldview, and does so. He has two doctorates, has obtained the highest level of membership in the Institute of Physics and other prestigious organizations, and has written over a hundred scientific research papers. Yet, he writes clearly to the average person as well as other scientists. Laymen and intellectuals will appreciate and understand his message. For example, many of us have heard the claim that science has shown that there could not have been a single Adam and Eve. Dr. Andrews points out the assumptions which are made which lead to this claim. He shows how these assumptions have not been demonstrated. He also points out that the Theory of Evolution is based on those assumptions NOT being true. As he says, you can't have it both ways. In his chapter Dem Dry Bones, he has the reader assume that he/she has discovered an ancient fossil and wants to present it to the world. The formidable problems of dating the fossil and placing it correctly in a line with other fossils are amazing, and seldom discussed in the mass media stories about such events. You will also appreciate his definition of "historical narrative". This book will give you powerful support when defending Christianity against questionable and false claims. If you are looking for a book for yourself, or a Christmas present for someone else, I highly recommend What is Man by Dr. Andrews.

[Rachel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Professor Andrews brings some of the most complicated science directly into the orbit of anyone who dreaded science lessons at school and has, consequently, tried to ignore it altogether. The book 'What is Man?' thoroughly explores the question and the writing is clear and really easy to understand but without being at all stuffy or dry. I'm not sure that I'll ever re-take the science exams I failed at school but the way Professor Andrews writes makes me think that I probably could!!