Recently the Discovery Channel showed a documentary titled “Understanding The Amazing Human Brain,” in which the functioning of the brain was investigated. Brain operations on some patients, the various brain areas’ functions as well as the awesome processing power of the brain were being examined. The Discovery Channel contended that the brain’s amazing design was “the zenith of millions of years of continuous evolution.” In this article we will show the Discovery Channel’s faults with regards to the human brain.
The Complexity Of The Brain’s Design
In science magazines the brain is often described as “the most complex structure within the universe.” The brain displays en enormous processing capacity with its100 billion nerve cells and the 100 trillion links interconnecting them. The processing capacity of this superior design is the dream and inspiration of computer engineers. Dr. Kerry Bernstein, technology expert for IBM, says in an interview published under the title “The Brain Teaches Computers A Lesson” in MSNBC.COM, that every year at IBM’s headquarters conferences are held, attended by neurologists who educate the engineers of the company about the design of the brain. She states that it is an impossibility to copy the brain’s processes:
It’s this notion of massive parallelism. Meaning one bit of data can spread to 100,000 other neurons. That makes it (the brain) 10 to the sixth times more efficient than the fastest computer… The reason is because of something that we can’t do in electronics. (1)
As well as this superior design, the brain also functions most productively. Martin S. Banks, a professor of optometry and psychology at California University in Berkeley, says, “The brain is efficient in that it doesn”t waste energy maintaining information that it will not likely need in real life.” (2)
Evidently the concept and functioning of the brain are the ultimate design. To believe that this organ is the product of coincidental evolutionary processes as the Discovery Channel proposes would be as plausible as believing that computers are not made by engineers but form by chance meetings of plastics and metals.
The Discovery Channel advances this thesis on the brain according to its prejudices with which it tries to formulate an evolutionary explanation to every biological formation, even though it is obvious that an organ such as the brain could not form by the imaginary mechanisms of the evolution theory. Evolutionists claim that the brain’s disposition is the consequence of totally accidental mutations, that bacteria, incapable of thought, created such a miraculous design like the human brain, simply by a coincidental and prolonged “process of evolution.” This claim is as unscientific as it is irrational. Genetic research revealed that mutations do not add information to genes and if they do have an effect on the organism, it is always a damaging one. Artificially induced mutations under laboratory conditions have never benefited any life form. It has been established that embryos subject to mutations are either stillborn or born deformed. It is clear that mutations cannot create an “order” as in the brain. The possibility thereof is as small or big as a calculator turning into the most sophisticated computer on the planet when beat by the hammer.
The TV Channel’s Views On The Brain Betray Its Biases
Basically the Discovery Channel’s claim of the brain’s evolution is the product of its prejudices. That this is so becomes clear enough with the assertions made in the documentary about the organization of the brain in childhood. The social environment, the activities the child engages in and the knowledge he acquires effect the connections being established between the neurons in the developing brain. The synapse forming the connections between the neurons become stronger in direct relation to the frequency of their use.
The Discovery channel maintains that this process children experience is shaped by the resources of “mother nature.” Mother nature is an expression materialists resort to in instances where they cannot come up with a satisfactory explanation as to how, for example, complex structures like the brain could be formed by evolution. It is obvious that no coincidence or act of nature could create a structure with the complexity of the brain. Such complex designs indicate the existence of a conscious designer. Just like the necessity of an engineer for the designing of a computer there must be a designer for the infinitely more complex and faster working organ as the brain is. It is equally impossible for mother nature, the blind coincidences in nature and rain, wind and lightning like phenomenon to produce a computer or, for that matter, a brain.
The Evolution Of Amygdale Is An Illusion
The channel contends that the area of the brain known as amygdale was one of the first to evolve and does so as if a scientific fact, but fails to produce any scientific data to support this claim about amygdale. For a fact it could not do so because soft tissue like the brain does not fossilize and therefore it cannot be established what kind of brain structure today’s living beings have had in the past. In short the Discovery Channel tells tall tales to its viewers about an imaginary evolution of the brain that cannot be observed and neither scientifically supported. To claim that the amygdale was first to appear in the evolution process is as sensible as to claim that the microprocessor of the computer appeared and subsequently all the other parts formed coincidentally in such a way as to be perfectly compatible with it.
We advise the Discovery Channel to drop its Darwinist bias and to acknowledge that such a complex design as the brain can only be by conscious design or, in other words, only by creation.
1- “Brain Teaches Computers A Lesson”, http://www.MSNBC.com, August 6, 2002