Apicontent

Imagine the Designer

The universe not only implies the existence of a designer but suggests something about what he might be like.

In the movie Contact, Jodi Foster portrays Ellie Arroway, a beautiful young scientist obsessed with finding intelligent life on other planets. One day, as Ellie monitors radio transmissions from space, a coded message flashes across her computer screen. The stunned Ellie realizes that intelligent beings have communicated with Earth from beyond our galaxy.

Decoding the instructions, Ellie and her colleagues discover the encrypted blueprint for an advanced spacecraft that will transport them to the distant galaxy, millions of light years from Earth. Once the spacecraft has been built, Ellie is chosen to become its sole passenger.

Although Ellie’s boyfriend objects, her passion for meaning in life overpowers her love for him. Turning to him, Ellie explains her reason for leaving him: “I’ve been searching for something, some reason why we are here. What are we doing here? Who are we?”

Ellie speaks for many of us who wonder about life. Who are we, and why are we here? (Actually, some of you may be wondering about more mundane things, like what’s for dinner, or what she thinks of you.)

Has science, with its new discoveries in outer space and inside the molecular world, reached a point where it can shed light on such profound questions? Never has there been a more exciting time in the history of science. What does the fine-tuning of cosmos and intricate complexity of DNA mean to us?

Admitting the Appearance of Design

In light of recent discoveries, many leading scientists have had their materialistic presuppositions challenged. One of those, Sir Fred Hoyle, was a world-renowned astronomer and founder of the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge.

Although Hoyle remained an agnostic, the brilliant astronomer remarked, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology.”¹

Hoyle is not alone. Other great scientists have alluded to the compelling evidence for design in the universe, yet have been unwilling to ask the question of who planned it, or to delve into the reason behind the universe. Stephen Hawking admits scientists’ reticence to probe questions of our origins, stating, “There must be religious overtones. But I think most scientists prefer to shy away from the religious side of it.”²

However, there are scientists who are not so shy, and are asking profound questions: Why is the universe so finely-tuned for life? Has a designer left his fingerprints? Why are we here?

Asking Deeper Questions

Although Hawking tries to avoid religious discussion, he still asks,

What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe.

Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why. On the other hand, the people whose business it is to ask why, the philosophers, have not been able to keep up with the advance of scientific theories.³

Here Hawking opens up new territory for scientists. Since Copernicus, and especially after Darwin, materialism had ruled the day in science. Any reference to God was scoffed at as a “God of the Gaps” argument, another way of saying “God is merely a stop-gap explanation for lack of knowledge, and has no place in our materialistic universe.” But now it is scientists who are actually initiating the discussion about an intelligent designer.

Theoretical astrophysicist George Greenstein, in his book, Symbiotic Universe, asks, “Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon the scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?⁴

Greenstein is a luminary in his field, being a professor of astronomy at Amherst College and a recipient of the Phi Beta Kappa Award in Science. This isn’t Forrest Gump here, scratching his head at the complexity of it all or attributing to God what he simply can’t grasp. Neither are other scientists who, like Greenstein, are looking at the scientific evidence and pondering the reality of God.

What Kind of Designer?

If leading scientists like Greenstein are right in their conclusions that a designer exists, are there things that can be deduced about his nature from the observation of the universe? Why did he create us? Has he left any clues about our purpose here on planet Earth? Although these questions move beyond science into the realm of natural theology, they have been provoked by new discoveries in science.

So, if a designer has left clues about himself, where would we look for them? To begin our search, we need to examine the universe to see if he has left his fingerprints. Just as the paintings of The Last Supper and Mona Lisa tell us something about their artist, Leonardo Da Vinci, and Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony reveals clues about its composer, we should be able to discern clues about a designer by observing his universe.

Although scientific evidence only gives us a partial picture of what a designer is like, the universe does reveal some insightful clues about his nature.

The following characteristics seem to emerge. The designer is a

• purposeful designer
• powerful designer
• superintelligent designer
• personal designer

Once scientists discovered the remarkable fine-tuning of the universe, many reasoned there must be a purpose behind it. Paul Davies, one of the leading theoretical physicists in the world, writes, “If the universe has been designed by God, then it must have a purpose.”⁵

Mathematician Roger Penrose –who, with Hawking, derived proof for the beginning of time–offers his insight:

There is a certain sense in which I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance. Some people take the view that the universe is simply there and it runs along–it’s a bit as though it just sort of computes, and we happen by accident to find ourselves nin this thing. I don’t think that’s a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe. I think that there is something much deeper about it, about its existence, which we have very little inkling of at the moment.⁶

Penrose deduces that the fine-tuning of physical constants (See “Why Is Only Earth Suitable for Life?“) for man’s existence is so improbable that it must have been intentionally planned. And it follows that whoever intentionally created the universe has a purpose that must include us. In his book, Superforce, Davies writes,

The laws which enable the universe to come into being spontaneously seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design. If physics is the product of design, the universe must have a purpose, and the evidence of modern physics suggests strongly to me that the purpose included us.⁷

If purpose is apparent from the fine-tuning of the universe, its awesome power is evident from startling new discoveries made possible by Hubble and other high-powered telescopes. Consider a few of the latest findings:

• Black holes have such powerful gravitational force that even light cannot escape their grasp. Large ones gobble up stars like our Sun as mere snacks. (Maybe yummy…but a little too hot).⁸
• Supernova eruptions are so powerful that their light can rival the visual brightness of an entire galaxy with 100 billion suns. The resulting neutron star is so dense that on Earth, one teaspoonful would weigh a billion tons!⁹
• Quasars generate the energy of 100 galaxies, shine with the intensity of a trillion suns, and reach temperatures of several million degrees.¹⁰
• Gamma-ray bursts have the power of 10 billion billion suns. A single gamma-ray burst is capable of obliterating life on Earth in milliseconds.¹¹

Power demonstrated by great earthquakes and thermonuclear explosions would be virtually insignificant when contrasted with that of black holes, gamma-rays, or quasars. Yet, even those are miniscule when compared with the power demonstrated at the beginning of the universe. Scientists are not only amazed at the power within the cosmos, but even more in awe of the power required to create and control it all.

Scientists are also in awe at the incredible genius behind the universe. Arguably the greatest mind in the history of science, Albert Einstein acknowledges that the mind behind the universe is a “superintelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”¹² Einstein acknowledged this intelligence without ever defining it in personal terms.

Perhaps with DNA engineering, man will discover ways to increase human intelligence or develop supercomputers far more advanced than Deep Blue, the IBM version that defeated Grandmaster Gary Kasparov in chess. But as Einstein notes, we can’t compare human genius with the intelligence of the one who designed it along with the universe and its laws of physics, quantum mechanics, and the intricate complexity of DNA?

Astronomer Hugh Ross explains that it is impossible to impose any limit on either the power or intelligence of a transcendent Creator.¹³ That is because the Creator would not be restricted by any of the constraints of our four-dimensional world–including time.

Think for a minute of a being outside of time and the limitations of gravity and other natural forces. Our natural laws would have no power over him since he would be in complete control of them. And, being outside of time, he would know everything in the past–present–and future.

But is the Creator of the universe merely an energy force like a microwave or is he personal like us? Is he aloof and non-relational like The Force in Star Wars? If so, how was an impersonal force capable of creating personal, relational beings? This is the question that has puzzled both scientists and philosophers.

In Contact, Ellie Arroway supposedly discovers the purpose she had been yearning for, but not from a personal creator. After returning from her encounter with an advanced civilization, Ellie tells her Christian friend Palmer,

The story I have to tell you isn’t exactly about Punishment and Reward….There’s not a word in it about Jesus. Part of my message is that we’re not central to the purpose of the Cosmos.¹⁴

Ellie continues, “The universe was made on purpose….In whatever galaxy you happen to find yourself, you take the circumference of a circle, divide it by its diameter, measure closely enough, and uncover a miracle–another circle, drawn kilometers downstream of the decimal point. There would be richer messages farther in. It doesn’t matter what you look like, or what you’re made of, or where you come from. As long as you live in this universe, and have a modest talent for mathematics, sooner or later you’ll find it.” Sagan ends his novel with this message: “She found what she had been searching for.”¹⁵

Is it possible that an impersonal, mathematical force like Ellie’s circles is behind everything in the cosmos? In his book, The Kalam Cosmological Argument, Dr. William Lane Craig argues that it isn’t. He states that a beginning to the universe proves that its Creator is personal. Craig summarizes the possibilities:

1. The universe either (a) had a beginning or (b) had no beginning.
2. If it had a beginning, the beginning was either (a) caused or (b) uncaused.
3. If it had a cause, the cause was either (a) personal or (b) not personal.¹⁶

Therefore, since the evidence clearly points to a universe that had a primary cause, it logically follows that the cause was personal. According to Craig, intelligence, volition (will), and power are all implied in the act of creating. If we think about a painting such as the Mona Lisa, we see the same things. Leonardo Da Vinci needed intelligence, volition, and power to paint the image he wanted to portray. These attributes point to Da Vinci being a person, and not a mere force.

Philosopher Francis Schaeffer concurs, asserting, “No one has ever demonstrated how…an impersonal being can produce the needed complexity of the universe, let alone the personality of man.”¹⁷

Has the Designer Spoken?

Yet, in spite of these arguments for a personal creator, materialists remain unconvinced. They speak of a cold, uncaring universe that has originated by undirected forces blindly operating through eons of time. They believe in a universe without any purpose. But some startling new evidence recently brought forth seems to challenge their skepticism.

In The Privileged Planet, theologian Jay Richards and astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez reveal a startling fact: Earth has been placed in an optimal location for scientific observation of our universe.¹⁸

In other words, if Earth was in a slightly different position in our solar system or galaxy, or located in another galaxy, we might find ourselves looking at a night sky with no stars to observe. Or the sky might be so flooded with light that we couldn’t distinguish one star from another. If we didn’t have this optimal position, many of the discoveries about our universe would have been impossible.

Imagine being in a large room with many seats and one tiny window with a view of space. One front row seat has a view, while the occupants of other seats can’t see out. Earth’s position in the universe is like having that front-row seat. Our front-row seat to the universe isn’t part of the fine-tuning requirement for life, but it seems to have been given to us intentionally. Richards and Gonzalez conclude that a designer wants us to know and understand his universe.

At this point many might ask, “so what? How does that impact my life?” The obvious next question is, has a personal creator related to us in ways we can better understand? And if so, where do we look to discover more about his nature, and what he has said about our purpose?

Agnostic George Smoot has remarked that an obvious parallel exists between the big bang and the Christian teaching of creation from nothing.¹⁹ Smoot takes his inference to the Christian God no further, presumably leaving it for theologians.

Theology, like philosophy or science, makes logical deductions –in this case, logical deductions about the nature of God. So let’s see what we can logically deduce from what science has told us about God. Since we have seen evidence from science and logic that the Creator of the universe is purposeful, powerful, super-intelligent, and personal, he certainly would understand our desire to know more about him and his purpose for creating us.

A creator who intentionally designed us with consciousness, personality, and the ability to communicate would be able to communicate with us if he so desired. Just as SETI is searching outer space for messages from intelligent beings in other galaxies, so we would expect a personal creator to have given us a message in a way we could understand. Of all creatures on Earth, humans are the only ones who are able to communicate propositional ideas –and we do it through written and spoken language.

Although our brief attempt to make sense of the universe cannot possibly look at each religion or its god, Smoot’s assertion that a parallel exists between the scientific evidence for a beginning and the Christian teaching of creation deserves a deeper look.

The Judeo-Christian Bible remarkably presents a God who is purposeful, powerful, superintelligent, and personal. It speaks of this God as an infinite, eternal Creator, who alone made everything there is from nothing. Although he is presented as a fearsome God of law and order, he is also shown to be a God of love who created us for a relationship with himself.

Well, perhaps we should stop here. But we can’t resist taking our logic one more step. If God were really there, and if he revealed himself through science, and even through the written word, would that be sufficient? Would that show the highest order of care and communication? We’re persuaded that it would not.

If you really love someone, sending them an email every month or so just wouldn’t cut it. Sooner or later, if you really care, you’ll be compelled to drop in for a visit –show up and get involved in his or her life.

We close by suggesting that God may in fact have done just that –“shown up.” Here we leave physics and chemistry and biology, and turn to history, a field of human inquiry that can also provide knowledge about the real world.

As we examine the history of mankind, is there any evidence that a designer has paid us a visit –and actually dropped in on us? Is it possible that God has visited Earth in human form? Many laugh at such an idea, recalling numerous ancient myths and legends that utter tales of superhuman gods visiting Earth. However, if the Creator paid us a visit, we would not be looking for a myth, but a real person who has transformed history.

Whereas history records the feats of many great people, only one person has truly transformed history. Yale historian, Jaroslav Pelikan tells us his name: “Jesus of Nazareth has been the dominant figure in the history of Western culture for almost twenty centuries.” When the great secular historian, H. G. Wells was asked what person had the biggest impact upon world history, he answered, “By this test, Jesus stands first.”

But historical impact is only one element of Jesus’ uniqueness. There are several other reasons why this one man is worthy of a deeper look. His life, his reported miracles, and his claims, convinced his followers that he was more than a mere man. They left a written record that Jesus was the one who put the stars in space, established the laws of the universe, and created you and me.

But were they deluded? Or could the entire account of Jesus have been a conspiracy like The Da Vinci Code asserts? Was Jesus Christ just a great man who was later deified by the Roman emperor, Constantine and the fourth century church? Or are the written accounts in the New Testament right? Did the Creator actually drop in on us and pay us a visit?

These all-important questions about this intriguing person are the subject of another investigation: Y-Jesus. In the Y-Jesus magazine which is about the most fascinating person in history, we examine evidence outside the Bible and tradition in order to solve the mystery of Jesus’ true identity. And if he is really who he claimed to be, we want to know what he said about you and me, and our purpose in the universe.

As we contemplate our place on this remote planet in a universe of ten billion trillion stars, we come back to the question, are we accidents, or are we special?

Materialist Stephen Jay Gould considered us lucky to be alive– “the glorious accident resulting from 60 trillion contingent events.” Yet, as leading scientists examine the universe, another picture is beginning to emerge. Many of these scientists are convinced that we are a divine conception, the intentional work of a powerful, super-intelligent, purposeful designer. If true, we are special.

---

Endnotes

The Human Enigma

Scientific evidence indicates human beings are a unique species that is far superior to any species existing today or in the past.

In the movie, Planet of the Apes, Astronaut Leo Davidson is on a routine reconnaissance space mission in the year 2029, when suddenly his pod cruiser is thrust through a wormhole. Not knowing where they were, or how many years had advanced, he and his crew crash-land their cruiser on a strange planet that appears devoid of life. Suddenly they encounter an advanced tribe of intelligent talking apes who rule over a remnant of mute humans. Davidson’s other crew members are killed by their brutal rulers, but he escapes to a desolate area called the Forbidden Zone, an area the apes greatly fear.

In the end, Davidson discovers that he has actually landed on Earth in the year 3978. And the Forbidden Zone is the desert-like remains from an ancient nuclear holocaust that wiped out humanity. A remnant of the Statue of Liberty is discovered in the dust, along with other reminders of a civilization that once was.

The primary message is clear: human warfare and self-destruction enabled apes to evolve as the dominant species. But there is another, more subtle message: humans and apes are linked by an evolutionary family tree. Although the movie is humorous and entertaining, the message reflects the Darwinian paradigm that we are merely accidental beings in a chance world.

Actually, the entire Darwinian paradigm revolves around the theme that man is not unique, but rather just the end-product of a long evolutionary chain. The argument goes; that since we have bodies similar to apes, and since we share much of the same DNA, we must be related to them. Materialists cite this as proof that Darwin was right about us descending from lower forms of life.

It is not the purpose of this brief article to speculate on how life and the various species originated. A super-intelligent designer could have created life in a number of different ways, either using natural laws, or transcending them. In fact, some scientists such as Simon Conway Morris, and Richard G. Colling, believe in designed evolution, where all of nature was intricately and ingeniously planned to eventually create you and me. The issue we address here is what leading scientists have discovered about our origins. In other words, what does the evidence reveal about our species—are we simply advanced apes, or are we unique and distinct? If the latter is true, it would certainly add credence to the argument that we have been designed.

Look! A Human Being

The fossil trail has revealed creatures that seem to resemble apes, but have some human-like features. These members of the ape family that scientists call hominids are clearly not human, but evolutionists believe they eventually became us. Evolutionists begin with the premise that life is merely one large family tree (or bush).

They are looking for a trail of fossils that confirm Darwin’s theory of macroevolution of our species. However, if evidence show that Homo sapiens appeared suddenly with qualities and traits distinct from all other forms of life, the possibility that we have been designed becomes apparent.

So have paleoanthropologists been able to bridge the chasm between what they call hominids and us, proving an evolutionary link?

We’ve all seen museum exhibits depicting slightly erect ape-like creatures that presumably became us. These exhibits and drawings in biology textbooks imply that there is solid fossil evidence to back up the claim that such fossils have been discovered. In fact, paleoanthropologists have uncovered pieces of bones and skull fragments from a variety of primates they consider human ancestors. Ardipithecus ramidus, the oldest of these, is dated at over 4 million years old. Homo habilis and Homo erectus are depicted as more recent members of our family tree.

It all looks and sounds so convincing. But what sounds like a solid argument for human ancestry unravels when the facts are made clear. Henry Gee, the chief science writer for Nature writes, “The intervals of time that separate fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent.”¹

The problem is that paleoanthropologists are attempting to fill in an enormous puzzle with only a few fragments of bones and teeth that according to Gee, could be “fitted into a small box.”² One of the most renowned evolutionists of the twentieth century, Stephen Jay Gould agrees with the difficulty, stating, “Most hominid fossils, even though they serve as a basis for endless speculation and elaborate storytelling, are fragments of jaws and scraps of skulls.”³

Gould is not alone. Harvard zoologist Richard Lewontin also acknowledges: “when we consider the remote past, before the origin of the actual species Homo sapiens, we are faced with a fragmentary and disconnected fossil record.”⁴ Yet, these fragments of jaws and scraps of skulls, no matter how sparse and disconnected, have revealed some insightful clues about the uniqueness of our species. Let’s dig deeper.

The first thing that strikes one as odd about Homo sapiens is their appearance on the stage of history. Despite the transitional drawings found in textbooks, intelligent, laptop-carrying man seems to have shown up rather abruptly.

Although small fragments of hominid bones have been discovered, there is a huge jump from such creatures to our own species. Naturalist Ian Tattersall (curator at the American Museum of Natural History) remarks in his book The Fossil Trail: “Something extraordinary, if totally fortuitous, happened with the birth of our species.”⁵ Tattersall is referring to the suddenness with which humans appear in the fossil record.

Biologists are unable to explain why our species appeared so suddenly. Professor John Maynard Smith, Emeritus of Biology at the University of Sussex writes, “Something very puzzling happened….The fossil evidence is patchy, but it seems that hominids suddenly developed brains that, in terms of size, were much like ours.”⁶ In other words, the jump from hominids to humans is unexplainable. No links have been discovered.

Most hominids had small, ape-like brains and no capacity for language. Then, suddenly in the fossil record, man appears with several unique features, including an enlarged brain capacity. Why are there no clear-cut links between hominids without language capacity and Homo sapiens?

Speaking of Speaking…

The ability to speak distinguishes man from all apes and hominids. Although human beings have both the hardware and the software for language, hominids didn’t. They didn’t even come close.

According to noted evolutionist Ernst Mayr, humans have the ability to conceptualize, resulting in the development of art, literature, mathematics, and science. Hominids and all other animals lack this unique human quality, and are only able to communicate by giving and receiving signals.⁷

But even if man suddenly developed the ability to speak, what evolutionary advantage brought about the change? This presents a huge problem for those who argue against a designer.

As he traces the history of our species, evolutionist Steve Olson spells out the problem. “Of course, language could not have come from nowhere. To speak, early humans needed particular vocal and neural mechanisms. But here a notorious problem arises. Any adaptations produced by evolution are useful only in the present, not in some vaguely defined future.”⁸

In other words, for human speech to work, the brain structure, the tongue, the larynx, the vocal cords, and many other parts all need to be fully developed.

Some biologists have speculated that a mutation occurred allowing an individual to talk. But, according to Olson, such explanations “have always been suspect.” In reality, science cannot explain why we are the only creatures with the ability to speak.

Uniquely Human?

Man’s sudden appearance has scientists like Harvard scholar Lewontin pouring cold water on claims that a missing link between humans and apes has been discovered: Although he is an evolutionist, Lewontin acknowledges, “Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor.”⁹

The sudden appearance of man in the history of our planet has some scientists using the world “miracle.” During an interview with the French science monthly La Recherché, Marcel Schutzenberger was asked, “The appearance of human beings—is that a miracle?”

The outspoken French mathematician replied,

Naturally. And here it does seem that there are voices among contemporary biologists— I mean voices other than mine—who might cast doubt on the Darwinian paradigm that has dominated discussion for the past twenty years.

Gradualists and saltationists [people who believe in rapid species change] alike are completely incapable of giving a convincing explanation of the quasi-simultaneous emergence of a number of biological systems that distinguish human beings from the higher primates.

Schutzenberger was referring to several physiological differences between humans and primates for which no transitional fossils have been discovered.

He then concludes the interview with his view that there is no materialistic explanation for the sudden development of man: “The reality is that we are confronted with total conceptual bankruptcy.”¹⁰

Even evolutionists like Mayr, who believe we descended from hominids writes: “Man is indeed as unique, as different from all other animals, as had been traditionally claimed by theologians and philosophers.”¹¹

Along the same lines, Ian Tattersall remarks on the uniqueness of humanity: “Homo sapiens are as distinctive an entity as exists on the face of the Earth, and should be dignified as such instead of being adulterated with every reasonably large-brained hominid fossil that happened to come along.¹²

Of all hominids, only Neanderthal had a large brain. Yet, Neanderthal was a distinct species according to DNA studies.¹³ And, according to Olson they “seem not to have developed the fluent language that lets us wonder, adapt, and create.”¹⁴

What has caused mankind to transcend the animal world and probe space, develop computers, discover DNA, and create art and music? What makes us unique? The answer came down to three pounds of lumpy gray matter floating around in our heads.

Three Pounds of Lumpy Gray Amazement

So, what are we to make of the human brain? We generally associate complexity with intelligence. The more complex a building or machine, the more intelligence is required to engineer it. The human brain, for starters, contains 12 billion neuron cells intertwined with 100 trillion connections. To illustrate a number as large as 100 trillion, molecular biologist Michael Denton suggests visualizing a solid forest of trees covering half the United States. If each tree contains one hundred thousand leaves, the connections in a human brain would equal the total number of leaves in the entire forest.

Yet the brain’s connections are not mere intersections like those in a highway system, but rather are a highly organized network far exceeding the complexity of all the communication networks on planet Earth.¹⁹

Our memories (one billion trillion bits of them) are not isolated in one section of the brain but instead are intertwined throughout the network. “Each junction has the potential to be part of a memory. So the memory capacity of a human brain is effectively infinite.”²⁰ Inside that three pounds of gray matter of yours is enough information to fill 20 million books (19 million if you aren’t that bright).

As we examine our universe, nothing else in it even remotely approaches the complexity of the human brain. Stephen Hawking compares the complexity of the human brain with most present-day computers and reveals the overwhelming superiority of our brains: “In comparison with most computers which have one central processing unit, the brain has millions of processing units … all working at the same time.”²¹

Even if communication engineers could apply the most sophisticated engineering techniques known to humanity, the assembly of an object remotely resembling the human brain would require an eternity of time. Even then, they still wouldn’t know where to begin.²² The overwhelming processing power takes place within an area of our brains called the cerebral cortex, and it is here where the human enigma is most apparent.

The Mystery of Consciousness

The cerebral cortex is the area of our brains where, mysteriously, “matter is transformed into consciousness.”²³ The cerebral cortex distinguishes human beings from all other animals. “Though the difference between the human genome and that of a chimp is estimated to be less than 1 percent, our cerebral cortex has ten times more neurons.”²⁴ But that is not the total story. Mayr reveals, “The unique character of our brain seems to lie in the existence of many (perhaps as many as forty) different types of neurons….”²⁵ And in spite of the DNA similarities, between humans and chimpanzees, there are still some 40 million differences.²⁶

Additionally, recent studies have shown that chimpanzees lack awareness of their own thoughts, a trait that appears to be uniquely human.²⁷

Awareness of thoughts is something that is beyond our ability to create, even in the most sophisticated software programs. When chess Grandmaster Gary Kasparov was defeated by the IBM supercomputer, Deep Blue, the computer didn’t even realize it had won. Deep Blue lacked this self-awareness we take for granted. It is called consciousness, a mystery that has baffled philosophers and scientists for centuries.

Our awareness, with its manipulation of ideas, actually takes place in the prefrontal cortex.²⁸ It is here that we reason, ponder, imagine, fantasize, and seek answers to why we exist. This prefrontal cortex area in a human makes up a far larger proportion of the cerebral cortex than in any animal, and it is the most complex arrangement of matter in the universe.²⁹

If we could shrink in size and become spectators to the incredible activity in the innermost portion of the cerebral cortex, we might see something resembling a kaleidoscope of fireworks networking in all directions. Yet these electrical impulses are billions of organized patterns that result in our thoughts and imaginations. All of these thoughts intersect with our self-awareness.

While consciousness is at rest during sleep, the brain is still in action. “Even in sleep, the brain is pulsing, throbbing and flashing with the complex business of human life—dreaming, remembering, figuring things out. Our thoughts, visions and fantasies have a physical reality.”³⁰

Nobody really understands consciousness or how we got it. Sir John Maddox, former editor-in-chief of the journal Nature, addresses the puzzle of consciousness: “Nobody understands how decisions are made or how imagination is set free. What consciousness consists of, or how it should be defined, is equally puzzling. … We seem as far from understanding cognitive processes as we were a century ago.”³¹

For years materialists have tried to reduce humans to nothing more than a series of drives and instincts.

However, in reality human consciousness chooses between the instincts, and it is as different and separate from them as the pianist is from the keys he chooses to play on the piano. The consciousness sits over and above our instincts, drives, and desires, and it chooses which it will act upon.³²

Thus, man can choose to disregard his own desire to survive for a higher purpose. Such an act of heroism works counter to Darwin’s survival of the fittest, and is unexplainable by materialists. There seems to be something about consciousness that transcends self-preservation.

Another example of consciousness is the objectivity of the self—you distinguish yourself from your experiences. When stimulated, you distinctly feel that pain or pleasure is happening to you and that you are distinct from the experience causing the pain or pleasure. It is this objective awareness of our own thoughts that appears to be unique to human beings.

So difficult is the problem posed by our consciousness that Laurence C. Wood said, “Many brain scientists have been compelled to postulate the existence of an immaterial mind, even though they might not embrace a belief in life after death.”³³

What process in natural selection could have led to human consciousness? Although evolutionists have taken a stab at it, no one really knows. Neither do scientists have an explanation for human imagination or creativity.

In human beings, the ability to simulate alternative future events appears to take place within our subjective consciousness. Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins admits that nothing in Darwinian evolution accounts for it. Although Dawkins remains an ardent materialist, he writes, “Why this should have happened is to me, the most profound mystery facing modern biology.”³⁴

Even leading evolutionist Stephen J. Gould recognized the inability of natural selection to explain the human brain. Gould admitted, “I don’t know why the brain got large in the first place. It certainly wasn’t so that we could paint pictures or write symbols.”³⁵

Different by Design?

Why did we get these incredibly complex brains with both the hardware and software for language? And according to evolutionists, our brains have remained unchanged. Mayr writes, “What is perhaps most astonishing is the fact that the human brain seems not to have changed one single bit since the first appearance of Homo sapiens….”³⁶ And where did consciousness and acts of heroism come from? There seems to be no evolutionary explanation for any of these unique human qualities.

In his book What Evolution Is, Ernst Mayr argues that our species is the only one of over a billion species that resulted in exceptional intelligence.³⁷

So what are we to make of us? We create music and art. We dream and imagine. We endeavor to reach the stars, launching space shuttles and peering at the universe through powerful telescopes. And we wonder why we are here on this tiny speck called Earth. The enigma of man seems to point to something or someone beyond ourselves.

---

Endnotes