Although human beings have certain biological similarities to other living things, only man has constructed civilisation. Mankind has established universities, hospitals, factories and states, composed music, held Olympic games and ventured into space, and has achieved all of these thanks to his intelligence. Evolutionists maintain that human intelligence assumed its present form by evolving during the period following the separation from his alleged closest relative, the chimpanzee. They base the leaps forward which they claim took place in the so-called evolution of intelligence on random changes in the brain and the developmental power of the ability to use tools. We frequently encounter these claims on television documentaries, which relate fantastical stories of ape-men first learning to make knives from stone and then to make spears. This propaganda is invalid, however. Although they attempt to clothe these scenarios in a scientific garb, they are actually completely unscientific and stem solely from Darwinist preconceptions. Without doubt the most important thing is the fact that human intelligence cannot be reduced to matter. This truth documents the invalidity of materialism and demolishes the foundations of the claims concerning the evolution of intelligence.
Evolutionists who maintain that intelligence emerged by means of evolution have no means whereby they can personally experience what it is like to possess a primitive level of intelligence nor to replicate the conditions of the so-called evolutionary process. Henry Gee, editor of the well-known magazine Nature, adopts a common sense approach, despite being an evolutionist himself, and openly admits that such claims are totally unscientific: For example, the [alleged] evolution of Man is said to have been driven by improvements in posture, brain size, and the coordination between hand and eye, which led to technological achievements such as fire, the manufacture of tools, and the use of language. But such scenarios are subjective. They can never be tested by experiment, and so they are unscientific. They rely for their currency not on scientific test, but on assertion and the authority of their presentation. (In Search of Deep Time, Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life”, Henry Gee, The Free Press, A Division for Simon & Schuster, Inc. , 1999, p. 5)
As well as being unscientific, such scenarios are also logically inconsistent. Evolutionists maintain that the ability to use tools developed thanks to the level of intelligence which emerged with so-called evolution, and that intelligence developed thanks to the use of tools. The fact is though that such development is only possible in the presence of already existing human intelligence. This account fails to answer the question of whether technology or intelligence emerged first.
Phillip Johnson, one of the most influential critics of Darwinism, writes this on the subject:
A theory that is the product of a mind can never adequately explain the mind that produced the theory. The story of the great scientific mind that discovers absolute truth is satisfying only so long as we accept the mind itself as a given. Once we try to explain the mind as a product of its own discoveries, we are in a hall of mirrors with no exit. (Phillip E. Johnson, Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law & Education (Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 1995, p. 62.)
Evolutionists indicate two factors as supporting their claims that human intelligence developed by chance. The first is mutation. However, the idea that mutations caused intelligence to evolve is evidently nonsensical. When mutations come into play they cause great disruption to the organism. Not a single mutation is known which arose in the brain and brought a person to a higher level of mental activity. To maintain, in the face of these facts, that mutations are capable of improving human intelligence is as ridiculous as claiming that a radio hurled to the ground from somewhere high up could turn into a television.
Robert Jastrow, president of the George Marshall Institute, describes the logic on with this ridiculous claim is based: It is hard to accept the evolution of the human eye as a product of chance; it is even harder to accept the evolution of human intelligence as the product of random disruptions in the brain cells of our ancestors. (Robert Jastrow, “Evolution: Selection for Perfection,” Science Digest, December 1981, p. 87.)
The second factor, according to Darwinists, portrayed as a basis of the so-called random development of intelligence is the “phenomenon of emergence.” Darwinists describe this as “the idea that a random event, itself the product of chance, could lead to the emergence of something else entirely unexpected.” They maintain that the “classic scientific example” of this is water. According to this view, oxygen and hydrogen on their own possess no characteristics resembling water, but when they are combined in the appropriate quantities the water molecules which emerge give rise to features which could not be predicted beforehand.
According to this logic, it is assumed that a random change which took place in the chemistry of the brain lies at the root of human consciousness.
However, this analogy is nothing but a deception. That is because, as everyone knows, human intelligence is not a simple, law-based phenomenon such as that of water. For instance, a human being can call to mind the appearances and voices of his or her relatives even when they are not physically present. The way that person perceives the appearances and voices as though they were actually present stems not from the atoms in the brain combining according to certain laws, but from his own will. The concept of “free will” indeed demonstrates that. In short, even if atoms reveal unexpected properties they have nothing to do with increased intelligence.
The point which totally invalidates the Darwinist claims regarding human intelligence is that the materialist philosophy on which the theory is based has no means of accounting for human intelligence.
Modern science has shown that, contrary to what materialists would have us believe, human intelligence does not stem from interactions between brain cells. Scanning devices, the product of modern technology, have disproved materialists’ expectations that there is a region or process in the brain which gives rise to intelligence. There can be no materialist explanation of human intelligence. The words of Julian Huxley are particularly noteworthy in terms of indicating the impossible position in which materialists find themselves.
Huxley compared the relationship between neuron activity and consciousness as the supramaterial phenomenon in the story of “Aladdin’s Lamp”: How it is that anything so remarkable as a state of consciousness comes about as a result of initiating nerve tissue, is just as unaccountable as the appearance of the Djin, where Aladdin rubbed his lamp… (The Problem of Consciousness, Colin McGinn, Athenaum Press Ltd, Gateshead, Tyne & Wear, 1991, p. 1)
Colin McGinn sets out the dilemma facing materialism in even clearer terms:
We have been trying for a long time to solve the mind-body problem. It has stubbornly resisted our best efforts. The mystery persists. I think the time has come to admit candidly that we cannot resolve the mystery. (Colin McGinn, Can We Solve the Mind-Body Problem? Mind, 98 (1989), p. 349; Gerald M. Edelman, Giulio Tononi, A Universe of Consciousness, Basic Books, USA, 2000.)
The mathematician and theologian William A. Dembski says that hope of finding a brain-based explanation of consciousness has been abandoned:
But as soon as one moves to the level of goals, intentions, and what philosophers more generally call propositional attitudes, cognitive scientists abandon hope of understanding this higher level through the lower neurological level. Hence they take refuge in notions like supervenience, emergence, and the now passé epiphenomenon. Thus cognition supervenes on neural activity, which in turn supervenes on the underlying physics; alternatively, intelligence emerges out of neural activity, which in turn emerges out of the underlying physical configuration; and consciousness is an epiphenomenon of neural activity… while the commitment to materialism persists, the hope of explaining human intelligence at the neural level, which for the materialist is the logical level, is not a serious consideration… (William A. Dembski, “Converting Matter into Mind”, 1998, www.arn.org)
Contrary to what evolutionists hope, it is clear that there is no property in the brain which can give rise to reason. That is because brain cells consist of such unconscious atoms as oxygen, carbon and nitrogen. These atoms cannot, of course, “think,” “know,” “remember” and “love.” Moreover, these atoms are the same in all the billions of people living on Earth. Yet despite having exactly the same atoms in their brains, billions of different people have entirely different characters. It is clear just how nonsensical materialist philosophy, which regards all these people, who are able to demonstrate quite different emotions and ideas in exactly the same circumstances, as collections of atoms, really is.
Modern scientific findings reject the claims of materialism, which says that man is an irresponsible being consisting solely of matter. The truth revealed by science is that a supernatural consciousness lies at the root of human intelligence.
There is no doubt that this confirms an important truth reported in the Qur’an. The origin of human reason is the soul breathed into us by our Creator God himself. God reveals this thus in the Qur’an,
""[God] then formed him and breathed His Spirit into him and gave you hearing, sight and hearts. What little thanks you show!"" (Qur’an, 32: 9)