Feedback archive → Feedback 2019
Clueless about consciousness
The following feedback is from CMI supporter Josh K. from the United Kingdom:
This video is trending on Youtube and I wanted to hear your thoughts. It is clearly another just so story but they try and explain that it (consciousness) arose from feelings of hunger.
[link removed according to feedback rules]
Is this an acceptable evolutionary example? How can I refute this because this will certainly be used against me at some point?
CMI-UK/Europe CEO Philip Bell responded to Josh as follows.
Dear Josh,
Thank you for your question about the trending YouTube video, “The Origin of Consciousness—How unaware things became aware”.1
The short answer to your question is, no, this is not a persuasive case for evolution. The origin of human consciousness remains a profound mystery to secular thinkers, hence this admission at the start of the video: “No one has come close to figuring it out.” That is a crucially important point and it is to the credit of the video producers that they confess this fact at the outset. However, it means that everything that follows in the remaining nine minutes of the video is sheer speculation.
They quickly reveal why it is that they are clueless: “Like much of what makes us human, our consciousness is likely to have evolved from less complex forms as a product of evolution by natural selection.” In other words, they disregard the account of mankind’s beginnings that is clearly taught in such passages as Genesis 1:26–29 and 2:15–25. God has not left us without a witness. He Himself, the Eyewitness to the events of His Creation, has transmitted to us a factual, easy-to-understand record in the Bible’s early chapters. Human beings were supernaturally and perfectly formed by God, complete with minds, consciousness and language. Adam and Eve were able to think, understand and reason, and were free moral agents. Their minds were not subject to the vagaries of our present fallen, sin-cursed world—there was no mental instability, confusion, or weakness because mutations and disease were as yet alien to that pristine world (Genesis 1:31). Our first parents had the free choice to obey or disobey their Maker (compare Genesis 2:16–17 with 3:1–7). Importantly, while it is true that Eve was deceived by Satan’s subtlety, Adam’s disobedience was wilful (1 Timothy 2:14). They were both culpable for their actions, as can be seen in God’s judgment of Eve (Genesis 3:16) and of Adam (Genesis 3:17–19). The Bible’s testimony is plain: human beings were supernaturally created with self-awareness, moral consciousness and ‘God-consciousness’ from the start.
When people reject the Creator’s revelation to humanity regarding their origin all that is left to them is to speculate. No amount of brain research—e.g. comparing the cognitive abilities of different animals with that of humans, various neurophysiological studies using electroencephalogram (EEG), pharmacogenomic investigations (studying the effects of genes on drug responses), brain chemistry and synaptic transmission, etc.—can hope to resolve this question. Learning more about the brain will bring people no closer to answering the question of the ultimate origin of the brain’s cognition, consciousness and so on. It is for this reason that we hear such comments as these on the video (my bold for emphasis):
- “It has probably emerged … ”
- “The original function of consciousness was probably … ”
- “The first major step towards consciousness was probably taken … ”
Note that I have deliberately truncated each of the above statements (hence the ellipses). I have not even stated what they go on to say, let alone discuss their ideas.2 Why not? Because, wild speculations about origins (and especially about something as complex and mysterious as consciousness) are utterly without value. There is no “probably” about it. Their ideas are simply the product of imaginative minds—this in spite of the fact that they have been published in learned journals. There is no more likelihood of the correctness of these ‘scholarly’ ideas, than the fanciful ideas of any layperson.
It is noteworthy that the video is part of a series of videos entitled “Big Questions of Life and the Universe”. The credits show that this video and others like it were made possible by a grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation, assumed by many to be Christian because of its ostensibly humble approach to the study of theology and science. However, the reality is that Templeton Prize money is being used to promote the ancient, devilish question, “Did God actually say … ?” (Genesis 3:1).
True Christianity unashamedly stands upon the authority of Holy Scripture. Christians must be sure of the ground upon which they are standing. Then, they will be able to refute ideas of this sort, by knowing and believing what God has said and written. His Word is unbreakable (John 10:35), pure (Psalm 12:6), trustworthy (Psalm 111:7) and true (Psalm 119:160, John 17:17). This attitude does not kill scientific enquiry into the fascinating world of the human mind and consciousness. On the contrary, it provides a fruitful platform upon which to explore the many marvels of our created world:
Great are the works of the Lord, studied by all who delight in them. Full of splendor and majesty is his work, and his righteousness endures forever (Psalm 111:2–3).3
Yours sincerely,
Philip Bell
Related Articles
Further Reading
References and notes
- See youtube.com/watch?v=H6u0VBqNBQ8. Published on 17 March 2019, it was already trending at more than 3.7 million views just two days later. Return to text.
- So, for instance, I have not bothered to interact with their imaginative ideas about hunger leading to consciousness. Return to text.
- Indeed, this is what Adam and Eve were mandated to do (see Genesis 1:28; 2:15, 2:19). Return to text.
Readers’ comments
Many blessings
Just like today man KNOWS deep inside that ALL that he sees was created, and man knows (again) deep inside when he has sinned against God. The only men who might not know this "Truth" are those who willingly continue to deny "The Truth", and eventually cross "that line" w/the result being that their conscience has been seared. Now where "that line" is for each person only The True and Living God knows.
The Lord God has been more than fair. He shed His own blood on that cross. So far He has shown mercy to ALL for 2,000 yrs. and He has left evidence ALL OVER the face of the earth and in the heavens of His Power and Glory.
The only way a man will see this evidence for what it is, and accepts it as truth is if a man makes a "conscious" effort to humble himself before God which in turn the Lord Himself will create a new heart in that man to then seek "The Truth of God".
As long as men make a conscious effort to use the insane wisdom of this world, the truth will elude them until it is to late and they find themselves standing before The Lord God facing judgement.
"Those who trusted The Lord shall not be ashamed".
Thank you,
J.W.
But since you insist, just what godless speculation featured in this video?
What scientific evidence was offered to explain each of these evolutionary advances (chemoreception, directional movement towards food, vision, search for food even when out of sight, 'delayed gratification', language)? None whatsoever. Yet any one of these stages would have necessitated numerous changes to the genetic code, all of them without goal, forethought, or direction - and all entirely randomly generated. Such speculation is not merely non-science, it is nonsense - and nonsense of a high order. But that's where godless musings take otherwise intelligent people.
As for the consciousness of any human being, we simply can't explain our presence in any other way. As humans, we try to claim that we are the only creature that has a relationship with a God on a personal level, but there is no way to prove that high claim outside of being created in some fashion by someone with the attributes mentioned at the close of the above chapter. Even then, we really have no idea just how much animals understand of their position in nature.
Genesis really does have some large problems to contend with that won't be answered to my standards on this site. As a matter of fact, it seems to be just another book that doesn't sound like an all powerful God has written.
We might add that Hebrews 1:3 teaches that the Son (Christ, the Creator) "upholds the universe by the word of his power" which presumably includes the very laws of physics that were established by the Creator, another indication that the laws of physics must be separate from God. Nevertheless, the latter verse certainly adds strong support to the notion that these physical laws would have no existence but for the upholding power of their Creator.
Certainly, there is much about animal perception is not understood. They can't tell us what they're feeling after all, so ethologists can only infer such things from animals' reactions to various stimuli or to deprivation of something they want/need. But is there really no evidence for the proposition that humans as conscious beings are unique among biological creatures, that we alone are aware of our Creator and capable of relationship with Him? Biblically, one could make a detailed case for humans (who alone are God's 'image bearers') being unique in these respects but I'll offer just one verse fragment as food for thought: "you are of more value than many sparrows" (Matthew 10:31, Luke 12:7).
But aside from the theological case for human uniqueness, consider the multitude of ways in which humans differ from animals, which intuitively leads most people to conclude that a vast gulf separates humans from animals (mentally and linguistically). This gulf is reflected in the stark differences between our competence (and that of animals) in the realms of: intellect, behaviour, education, aesthetics, artistic output, science and technology, architecture, exploration... and so on, ad nauseum.
However, the real rub is that you're happy to appropriate a New Testament passage to support a contention, while also stating later on that Genesis "seems to be just another book that doesn't sound like an all powerful God has written." In answer to this, "Why bother with the Bible at all if we have the ability to pick and choose from it, what is right and what is wrong?" No, those are not my words, but I heard them from the mouth of Prof Richard Dawkins in one of his attacks on Christianity (a TV programme entitled The root of all evil? (broadcast on Channel 4, 16 January 2006).
Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.