Darwinism attempts to explain how all of life came to its present state through purely natural, unintelligent causes. If the story is true, then it must also account for the evolution of the mind. That is, not only must it account for the creation of vast complex organs and new genetic information, it must account for the rational, reasoning part of mankind. This proves to be a real problem, however.

If purely natural, random causes are responsible for the mind/brain phenomena, then this means that the ability to think and reason is the result of unintelligent chemical and material processes. In other words, non-intelligence produced intelligence. Do you see a problem with that?

The Darwinian theory essentially turns us into mere machines or robots. There is nothing except the material of the brain. There is no real "self" that controls the machinery of the brain. This is, rather, an illusion. Instead, the brain is a material circuit, and Darwinian selection found it expedient to give us the illusion of being single entities who feel, love, hate, and make decisions.

Several problems result from this kind of thinking. For one thing, "There is no scientific evidence that the brain, or any individual cell within the brain, either was or could have been created by matter unassisted by preexisting intelligence. The scientists who believe that natural selection made the brain do not do so because of the evidence but in spite of the evidence" (Johnson, Wedge, p. 123).

To evolutionism, the mind is produced by a material process and therefore cannot be fundamentally different from matter itself. However, matter itself cannot account for the distinction between the mind and the brain. The mind involves information that is coordinating the neurons of the brain in such a way as to produce the capacity to think. Information itself is not matter. It may be imprinted on matter, but the information itself does not come from matter. Information comes from intelligence, and this aspect of the mind is not explained through naturalistic causes.

Consciousness is not explicable by purely natural causes either. Darwinists, in trying to explain this way, find themselves falling into a trap. If the thinking, rational self is only an illusion brought about by only material causes (firing neurons), then how can a Darwinist really think that the his/her own thoughts are actually rational? If evolution is responsible for the mind and the brain, then how can any evolutionist be sure that he/she actually perceives the world properly? How do you know that the mind/brain phenomenon evolved correctly so as to allow us to think as intelligent beings? To prove this concept scientifically, one would have to first assume it. But this is circular, and cannot be demonstrated through the scientific method.

It is difficult to understand how people can think that unintelligent forces produced intelligence. Given that assumption, how can one be sure that they have true intelligence in the first place? Maybe we are just somewhere "in between" in the evolutionary process and we have not yet developed into truly rational beings yet. We just think that we can think; it is all an illusion.

This is the mess one will get into, however, when they assume that an intelligent being outside of nature cannot exist. Theists have no problem here. If God created, then He is responsible for producing the ability to think and reason within the material brain.