If Evolution Is True… Why Are You Conscious?

“Cogito Ergo Sum,” or “I Think, Therefore I Am,” was a term coined by French philosopher, scientist, and mathematician René Descartes in 1641. In his book Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes adopted a skeptical approach to determining what is true. He concluded that his existence is a fact, based on his ability to think—if he can think, he exists. Fast forward over three hundred years, and we see a world desperately clinging to evolution as the means by which we exist today. However, how does our consciousness, the human mind, or the ability to think relate to our existence? How and why did the ability to think evolve? Did it evolve? Let’s examine consciousness and how it has become one of evolution’s ignored problems.

Let’s face it, there is a huge difference between humans and animals. The cognitive ability of humans to think and reason has allowed for remarkable advancements in society, such as the ability to build complex machines and the ever-growing artificial intelligence systems. A space rocket, a satellite, and the space station are all feats achieved by humans that are beyond our house pet’s ability. Yes, your dog Max may be good at fetching, but can it build a rocket to the moon? Can it code the complex systems that have resulted in the emergence of artificial intelligence in almost every aspect of life? Certainly not! This great divide has undoubtedly placed humans at the pinnacle of the so-called evolutionary process, but how does evolution explain human consciousness? Why did we need it in the first place? Apes are surviving perfectly well without the ability to fly to the moon, send a telescope into the far reaches of space, or even conduct surgery to save lives.

This divide extends far beyond intelligence alone. Humans possess abstract reasoning, moral judgment, creativity, and self-awareness to a degree that no other species comes close to. We do not just experience pain and pleasure like animals; we ponder our own mortality, seek purpose, and appreciate beauty. How does the ability to compose symphonies, develop ethical philosophies, or ponder the nature of existence aid in survival? If evolution were strictly about survival, such traits should have been unnecessary.

Before we go any further, let’s take a step back and look at evolution for a bit. Evolution is defined as the process by which species change over time through natural selection—those that are fit for the environment survive. So, species adapt and change in order to survive in their environment. However, Michael Egnor, Professor of Neurosurgery and Pediatrics at the State University of New York and Senior Fellow at the Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence, explains:

“How can natural selection act on something that is not physical? Darwinian natural selection, whatever its worth as a scientific theory, can’t explain how non-physical attributes emerge. The reason it can’t is this: In order to ‘evolve’ by Darwinian mechanisms… first-person experience must provide a selective advantage over third-person existence. That is, consciousness must manifest itself physically. Any aspect of consciousness that didn’t manifest itself physically could not evolve because Darwinian natural selection can only act on physical attributes.”

Bernardo Kastrup, a philosopher, scientist, and advocate for evolution, admits:

“Therefore, under materialist premises, phenomenal consciousness cannot have been favored by natural selection. Indeed, it shouldn’t exist at all; we should all be unconscious zombies, going about our business in exactly the same way we actually do, but without an accompanying inner life… Phenomenal consciousness cannot have evolved.”

Simply put, there is no need for consciousness in the process of evolution. There is no advantage to our survival in understanding the complexities of neuroscience or appreciating and writing music. We could be as intellectually limited as our supposed evolutionary ancestor, the ape, and still survive the process of natural selection. Yet, there is a clear difference between the mental faculties of an ape and those of humans.

Some may argue, however, that consciousness evolved as a property of the brain. Therefore, it was the brain that evolved, and consciousness merely tagged along—a theory known as epiphenomenalism. But why was this specific to humans and no other living being? The brains of apes surely developed from the same cosmic goo as humans, so what’s the difference?

Moreover, if consciousness is just a by-product of the brain, why does it feel so central to our identity? If materialist theories were correct, we should function just as efficiently without subjective awareness, much like a computer processes information without experiencing it. Yet, we do experience the world—not just process it. The paradox remains: if consciousness offers no clear survival advantage, why do we have it?

Michael Egnor continues:

“The problem with this epiphenomenal view of consciousness is that it renders the mind powerless. If consciousness is merely a property of the brain, it has no agency—no power to cause anything—in itself. Properties can’t do anything. For example, if you hit a nail with a yellow hammer, you hit it with the hammer, not with the yellow. Epiphenomenalism, which is the only framework by which an immaterial consciousness could evolve, asserts that what actually causes us to do things is brain activity. Consciousness is a useless spin-off.”

Others may theorize probable causes for the evolution of human consciousness, but that’s all they are—probable causes. The existence of consciousness is an area scientists have been unable to explain, yet the answer has always been there and is quite simple:

“But there is a spirit in man, and the breath of the Almighty gives him understanding.” (Job 32:8)