The Human Brain: Unexplained by Evolution

The Discover Magazine article (Aug. 2007) entitled "10 Unsolved Mysteries of the Brain" was most instructive. It opens with a remarkable description of the human brain:

"Of all the objects in the universe, the human brain is the most complex: There are as many neurons in the brain as there are stars in the Milky Way galaxy."

Now stop and think for a moment. The best attested, most easily observable physical law known as the second law of thermodynamics states unequivocally that in a closed system (which the universe is supposed to be), the trend is toward lower and lower states of organization. In other words, if we leave things to themselves, they will in time degenerate and eventually fall apart. In a universe where this is true, what are we to make of incredibly complex structures such as the human brain? Can we really imagine that the human brain somehow got here through purely naturalistic causes? If we're honest, we must allow at least for the possibility, if not the overwhelming probability, that the human brain was designed and created. Such an interpretation would certainly seem reasonable to the average man, but not, apparently, to the writers of Discover Magazine.

The following 10 "mysteries" were highlighted in the article. Along with some brief excerpts I've put some of my own comments as food for thought.

1. How is information coded in neural activity?

"As we delve deeper into the brain, however, we find populations of neurons involved in more complex phenomena, like reminiscence, value judgements, simulation of possible futures, the desire for a mate, and so on - and here the signals become difficult to decrypt."

Note that the brain's function involves the sending of coded signals. An effort, according to the article, is being made to decrypt these signals. The terminology used here is instructive. When have you ever heard of coded signals arising through purely naturalistic causes? The very terminology used here to describe brain function hints at the brain being intelligently designed.

Remember the SETI program (the Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence)? The whole idea was to build powerful radio telescopes to scan the universe for signs of intelligent life. How would we know when we found it? When we've detected an obviously coded radio signal. Since such coded information exists throughout our cells, most notably in the DNA, one would conclude that living things must have therefore been intelligently designed. That is, unless one was first committed to evolutionary naturalism.

"The challenge is something like popping the cover off a computer, measuring a few transistors chattering between high and low voltage, and trying to guess the content of the Web page being surfed. It is likely that mental information is stored not in single cells but in populations of cells and patterns of their activity."

Notice how often biological systems (in this case the brain) are analogous to objects of intelligent design (like the computer). Working in the aerospace industry, I have often pointed out that aircraft require a staggering amount of engineering skill and creative energy for their construction and maintenance. Yet aircraft engines are nothing compared to the complexity we see in even a single living cell. If aircraft engines can't "evolve" than why should we believe that living systems could or did?

Often critics will point out that the comparison is not valid because one object is alive and the other is not. I disagree. What we are talking about here is an arrangement of matter, whether it be in the form of an engine made of steel, magnesium, and copper, or a living system made of carbon, oxygen and sulfur. The point is the evolutionists are guilty of holding a double standard here. It's fine for them to compare living things to intelligently designed objects for the purpose of describing function, but it is somehow improper for creationists to make the same comparison when discussing the origin of those living systems.

2. How are memories stored and retrieved?

The article states that as a person learns, the brain is physically affected, but admits that:

"…we don't yet comprehend exactly what those changes are, how they are orchestrated across vast seas of synapses and neurons, how they embody knowledge, or how they are read out decades later for retrieval."

Of course, it would be wrong to point to our relative ignorance in this field as a "knock-down, drag-em-out" evidence for creation. The day may come when the process of memory storage may be explained biologically. I'd like to point out that even if we do manage to figure out how the mind stores memories, we would no doubt still be clueless as to the origins of such a complicated system. Take protein production for example. Biologists can describe in detail the entire complicated process, but are admittedly completely ignorant of how the process could have evolved.

"Memory retrieval is even more mysterious than storage. When I ask you if you know Alex Ritche, the answer is immediately obvious to you, and there is no good theory to explain how memory retrieval can happen so quickly."

Again, not being able to explain how the system works is not necessarily an airtight argument for creation. On the other hand, we are dealing with a system here that outperforms the most sophisticated computer in the world when performing a comparable task. If the computer needed a designer/creator, why is it unthinkable that human beings did also?

3. What does the baseline activity in the brain represent?

"Some of the baseline activity may represent the brain restructuring knowledge in the background, simulating future states and events, or manipulating memories."

"Activity decreases in some brain areas just before a person performs a goal-directed task. The areas that decrease are the same regardless of the details of the task, hinting that these areas may run baseline programs during downtime, much as your computer might run a disk-defragmenting program only while the resources are not needed elsewhere."

Here again the terminology being used is very illustrative. If human beings don't at least look designed, then how is it possible that so many of the brain functions are analogous to computer technology? Can we really believe that random chance could produce a system capable of "running baseline programs" comparable to a computer defragmentation program? The idea that the human brain arose through purely naturalistic (read irrational) causes defies common sense.

4. How do brains simulate the future?

The article mentions how a firefighter must make life and death decisions. To do this, he plays multiple scenarios in his mind of possible actions and outcomes. It then admits that:

"…emulation of possible futures is one of the key businesses that intelligent brains invest in. Yet we know little about how the brain's future simulator works…"

The article then goes on to describe a theory that perhaps stored memories play an active role in this key activity of the brain. After describing the theory this stunning statement is made:

"But how does a system learn to make good predictions about the world? It may be that memory exists only for this purpose."

The statement requires deep reflection. The "system" is a highly complex, organized arrangement of components whose number exceeds the number of stars in our galaxy. Evolutionists like Richard Dawkins demand that we believe evolution built it piece by piece, over endless ages of time. But how is this possible? According to the article, memory storage, staggeringly complex as it is, may exist for the purpose of aiding humans in proper decision making. That requires forethought, doesn't it? How can an impersonal random process possibly construct a system with forethought?

5. What are emotions?

"In the realm of memory, emotional events are laid down differently by a parallel memory system a brain area called the amygdala."

Remember, according to this article, memory storage and retrieval are absolute mysteries. It also looks as though memory has a purpose, that is, to allow humans to conceive possible actions and outcomes. Not only do these observations strongly suggest the brain was designed and created, but now we learn that memories are laid down in "parallel systems". According to the evolution story, all of our physical traits were acquired through random mutations over long periods of time. Each slight modification supposedly endowed the organism with a selective advantage. What evolutionary progression could one possible imagine for these parallel systems? Again, the obvious conclusion to be drawn here is that the human brain with all of its complexities was designed and created.

As expected, the article hints that behavioral problems, including criminal acts of violence, are the results of purely biological causes.

"Impulsive aggression and violence are also thought to be consequence of faulty emotion regulation."

This of course absolves us of any real responsibility. After all, as one evolutionist put it, "we are just dancing to our DNA." The Bible on the other hand recognizes that human being are free moral agents, and that we are responsible for our actions. One day everyone will stand before God and give account of our lives.

6. What is intelligence?

"Intelligence come in many forms, but it is not known what intelligence - in any of its guises - means biologically. How do billions of neurons work together to manipulate knowledge, simulate novel situations, and erase inconsequential information? What happens when two concepts "fit" together and you suddenly see a solution to a problem?"

"Currently, our robots are little more intelligent than sea slugs, and even after decades of clever research, they can barely distinguish figures from a background at the skill level of an infant."

The above quotes are very instructive. Here the evolutionist himself admits that the greatest computer technologists and robotics experts in the world haven't come anywhere near approaching the kind sophistication we see in the human brain. In a universe where systems and structures are everywhere degenerating (unless acted upon by outside intelligent forces), can we really continue to believe that something as magnificently complex as the human brain just "evolved"?

"What ever intelligence is, it lies at the heart of what is special about Homo Sapiens. Other species are hard-wired to solve particular problems, while our ability to abstract allows us to solve an open-ended series of problems. This means that studies of intelligence in mice and monkeys may be barking up the wrong family tree."

Again notice the language used here. Animal brains are said to be "hard-wired." This term is used exclusively for intelligently designed electronic devices. If brains appear to be "hard-wired" then is it really unreasonable to conclude that someone is responsible?

I especially appreciate the comment about how intelligence studies in animals is "barking up the wrong family tree" when seeking to understand intelligence in humans. Of course I agree. God made human beings unique and distinct to from the animal kingdom. We were made in His image and likeness, and we possess the ability to respond to His word in a way that no animal ever could or ever will.

7. How is time represented in the brain?

The article mentions how human beings respond faster to audio stimuli than they do visual. For example, runners are signaled to begin the race with a gunshot rather than a strobe light. The reason for this lies in the fact that the biochemical and electrical reactions responsible for sight and sound recognition take place at different rates. But this raises and interesting question: How is it that we perceive a synchronization between sight and sound when the biochemical / electrical processes for each are operating at different rates? The article provides the answer:

"Your brain is employing fancy editing tricks to make simultaneous events in the world feel simultaneous to you, even when the different senses processing the information would individually swear otherwise."

"Your notion of the smooth passage of time is a construction of the brain. Clarifying the picture of how the brain normally solves timing problems should give insight into what happens when temporal calibration goes wrong, as may happen in the brains of people with dyslexia."

Again, scientists are at an absolute loss to even explain how this synchronization takes place, let alone explain how it could have evolved through natural selection. If the brain looks designed, and it's staggering complexity seems to defy even description, is it really so outrageous to suspect that the human brain was designed and created?

8. Why do brains sleep and dream?

The article mentions the fact that all mammals sleep. Though no one really understands why this is so, the article makes this incredible statement without any proof whatsoever:

"The evolutionary trend is clear, but the function of sleep is not."

Notice the bias here. We don't understand why animals sleep. This can only mean that we are equally ignorant of how evolution by natural selection could have produced such a thing as sleep. Nevertheless, the fact that sleep is common to all mammals must be interpreted through an evolutionary framework. Hence, we all sleep because we all share a common evolutionary pathway. But is this the only way to interpret the data? Notice that evolution through natural selection has a real hard time explaining sleep:

"The universality of sleep, even though it comes at the cost of time and leaves the sleeper relatively defenseless, suggests a deep importance. There is no universally agreed-upon answer…"

Notice how the evolutionists attempt to wiggle out of this situation. Evolution is supposed to be based on survival of the fittest. Yet the article reminds us that sleep costs an organism time and leaves it defenseless. How could such a thing offer an animal selective advantage? The article simply assumes that evolution has occurred and then says that sleep must be of "deep importance." This explains nothing.

Seeing that sleep is still an enigma, could it not be (especially in the light of all the other mysteries of the brain that defy evolution) that all mammals sleep because they were designed and created by the same person? Why does the scientific community refuse to even consider this idea? This truly is one of the great mysteries of our age.

"… one [theory] that enjoys the most evidence –is that sleep plays a critical role in learning and consolidating memories and in forgetting inconsequential details. In other words, sleep allows the brain to store away the important stuff and take out the neural trash."

The article describes an experiment where subjects were given complicated tasks to complete. Though the test subjects showed little or no improvement in completing the tasks the same day, they did show marked improvement the following day. As the quote above states, such evidence leads scientists the suspect that sleep plays a role in the learning process. But what a convoluted process! What scientific evidence is there to support the idea that such a process simply evolved?

9. How do specialized systems of the brain integrate with one another?

"The territory of the adult brain is as fractured as a map of the countries of the world. Now that neuroscientists have a reasonable idea of how that territory is divided, we find ourselves looking at a strange assortment of brain networks involved with smell, hunger, pain, goal setting, temperature, prediction, and hundreds of other tasks. Despite their disparate function, these systems seem to work together seamlessly. There are almost no good ideas about how this occurs. Nor is it understood how the brain coordinates its systems so rapidly."

"…the specialized areas all interconnect with one another, forming a network with parallel and recurring links. Somehow, our integrated image of the world emerges from this complex labyrinth network."

The evolution story states that humans acquired all they we have physically piece by piece, over endless ages of time through random mutations. Remember that each slight modification must have somehow given the evolving organism a selective advantage. When we apply mathematics to the rates and types of mutation that we see in the world today the story absolutely falls apart. Not only that, but when we consider the brain (or any other complex organ or system in the body) we are faced with an incredibly complex arrangement of interdependent structures and systems that "work together seamlessly." Evolution says they all got here one piece at a time, but how is this possible?

Remember the article said that the different areas of the brain were "specialized." What are we to make of this term? At face value it sounds like these areas are designed to perform a specific tasks. But since all the areas of the brain are "integrated" and work together "seamlessly", what evolutionary pathway can we possibly suggest for such a system? We can shrug it off with "evolution did it" or we can face the fact squarely that there really is no scientific evidence to suggest that "the most complex object in the universe simply "evolved."

10. What is consciousness?

"Neuroscientists believe that consciousness emerges from the material stuff of the brain primarily because even very small changes to your brain (say, by drugs or disease) can powerfully alter your subjective experiences. The heart of the problem is that we do not yet know how to engineer pieces and parts such as that the resulting machine has the kind of private subjective experience that you and I take for granted…We don't have a theory yet of how to do this; we don't even know what the theory will look like."

Here is another confession that the greatest minds in the robotics and computer world cannot come anywhere close to creating an artificial intelligence resembling the human mind. Again, if the greatest engineers cannot construct even a rough facsimile of the human brain, why is it unthinkable that an even greater Engineer was responsible for the human brain?

In the end, we must concede that this commitment to materialism on the part of secular science actually undercuts the very basis for rational thought. CS Lewis once noted that if our minds got here through purely naturalistic (hence, irrational) causes, then he saw absolutely no reason to regard anything the human mind might conclude. As one theologian once put it, if our minds are simply the product of random chance, than no thought could be said to be more "valid" than another. In fact, thinking would be no more "valid" than itching! Paradoxically, the atheistic evolutionist argues that his thoughts are more valid than the creationists! Sensing the contradiction here, the article makes this comment:

"It seems strange, even unbelievable, that consciousness could be created from mindless neurons."

Yes, it does seem unbelievable. Nevertheless, the evolutionist disregards the hopeless contradiction here and offers the following explanation:

"The disparity seems less strange when we realize that every system can be described at many different levels. For instance, this sentence is made of words that are made of letters. Although higher-level structures (sentences) are made entirely of lower-level structures (letters), new phenomena (words) emerge at higher levels that are not apparent at lower levels. Imagine memorizing a poem letter by letter. Would you understand the poem?"

The attempt here is to explain how the staggering complexity of the human brain arose in step by step fashion without an intelligent creator. For the life of me, I can't see how the above analogy is supposed to do this. Notice that the "lower level" objects (words) in the analogy are supposed to correspond to the "lower-level" objects in the brain (neurons). The analogy is hopelessly flawed for at least two reasons. First, neurons could hardly be described as "lower-level" objects, seeing that they are staggeringly complex in their own right. Explaining how even a single neuron could have arose by natural selection is still a great mystery. Secondly, notice that the objects he chooses to compare to the human brain are all intelligently designed! Letters, words, sentences and poems are all the product of intelligent, creative effort. So while his analogy between language and the human brain may be accurate in some ways, it absolutely fails in its attempt to explain the origin of the human brain by evolution through natural selection.

The article concludes with this insightful comment:

"In the near term, scientists are working to identify the areas of the brain that correlate with conciseness. Then comes the next step: Understanding why they correlate. This is the so-called hard problem of neuroscience, and it lies at the outer limit of what material explanations will say about the experience of being human."

Unless these scientists are willing to acknowledge that human beings consist of more than chemicals, their attempts at unraveling the mysteries of the human brain are doomed to failure. The Bible says that humans consist of a body (brain) soul (mind, will, emotions) and a spirit (the ephemeral, undetectable part). To a large extent it is the spirit that operates the mind. If this is overlooked or denied then compete understanding of the brain will continue to elude scientists. Likewise, as long as scientists continue to deny and ignore God, the question of why different parts of the brain correlate the way they do will also remain shrouded in mystery.