Page 716 - Atlas of Creation Volume 4

According to Darwinists, a pure chance phe nom e non could lead to the un ex pect ed emer gence of
some thing else. They claimed that wa ter was a clas sic sci en tif ic ex am ple. On their own, hy dro gen and
ox y gen do not bear any wa ter-like char ac ter is tics, but the wa ter mol e cu les that emerge when these
chem i cals are com bined in a spe cif ic ra tio ex hib it prop er ties that could not have been pre dict ed be -

fore hand, from ei ther gas. Evolutionists sought to ap ply this chem i cal ob ser va tion to the sub ject of hu -
man con scious ness, claim ing that some ran dom change in the chem is try of the brain lay at the root of
hu man con scious ness. This hy poth e sis—com plete ly unt est a ble and for which there is no sci en tif ic ev -
i dence—was a clear in di ca tion of the de spair ing po si tion in which they found them selves. This ex -

ceed ing ly il log i cal claim is of course tech ni cal ly im pos si ble. As ev ery one is per fect ly well aware, hu -
man con scious ness is not a phe nom e non linked to phys i cal laws in the same way that wa ter is. The
way you can im ag ine the ap pear ance, smell and taste of a straw ber ry or the fa ces and voi ces of your
rel a tives as if they were present is not, of course, the re sult of the at oms in your brain pro duc ing some -

thing that was hith er to un known. The per cep tion of all these things hap pens of your v o li tion, and is
some thing you are think ing about at that mo ment. It is im pos si ble for phys i cal at oms and mol e cu les
with their phys i cal na tures to com bine in dif fer ent ways to pro duce the met a phys i cal con cept of “con -
scious ness.”

As the phi los o pher and writer Christian de Quincey states, “Scientists are in the strange po si tion
of be ing con front ed dai ly by the in dis pu ta ble fact of their own con scious ness, yet with no way of ex -
plain ing it.” 127
The ev o lu tion ist sci en tist J. Hawkes says this in an ar ti cle pub lished in the New York Times

Magazine:

I find it dif fi cult to be lieve that the ex trav a gant glo ries of birds, fish, flow ers and oth er liv ing forms were
pro duced sole ly by nat u ral se lec tion; I find it in cred i ble that hu man con scious ness was such a prod uct.
How can man’s brain, the in stru ment which cre at ed all the rich es of civ il i za tion, which served Socrates,

Shakespeare, Rembrandt, and Einstein, have been brought in to be ing by a strug gle for sur viv al . . . ? 128
This is mere ly a Darwinist dream, one that they in tense ly long to be proved true. Consciousness
can def i nite ly not be ex plained in terms of the ri dic u lous and un prov en claims of ev o lu tion.

Could an en ti ty who en joys the rhythm of the mu sic, en joys a meal or else finds it lack ing in fla -
vor, loves and feels af fec tion for an oth er per son, who in ves ti gates its own iden ti ty, who ex am ines its
own brain in the lab o ra to ry, makes dis cov er ies, solves prob lems, re joic es in its suc cess es, com pos es

and writes books, have pos si bly come in to be ing as the re sult of un con scious co in ci den ces? What ran -
dom chem i cal event could teach a hu man be ing to be have prop er ly, to be con sid er ate of the wel fare
of oth ers? As a re sult of what ran dom phe nom e non can a hu man be ing pos sess the abil i ty to learn
some thing, re mem ber it, teach it to oth ers and to rule na tions, to re joice, grieve, be come emo tion al,

714 Atlas of Creation Vol. 4