THE WORLD IN OUR BRAINS

      When you look out of the window, you think that you see an image with your eyes, as this is the way that you have been taught to think. However, in reality this is not how it works, because you do not see the world with your eyes. You see the image created in your brains. This is not a prediction, nor a philosophical speculation, but the scientific truth.

     This concept can be better understood when we realize how the visual system operates. The eye is responsible for transforming light into an electric signal by means of the cells in the retina. This electrical signal reaches the sight center in the brain. The signals create the vision you see when you look out of the window. In other words, the sights you see are created in your brain.

     You see the image in your brain, not the view outside the window. For example, in the picture shown on the right hand side, the light reaches the eyes of the person from outside. This light passes to the small sight center located at the back of the brain after the cells in the eyes transform it into electrical signals. It is these electrical signals which form the picture in the brain. In reality when we open the brain, we wouldn't be able to see any image. However, some kind of consciousness in the mind receives electrical signals in the form of an image. The brain perceives electrical signals in the form of an image, yet it has no eye, eye cells, or retina. So, to whom does the consciousness in the brain belong? 

What Darwin Did Not Know

As Charles Darwin was forced to admit, "I remember well the time when the thought of the [structure of the] eye made me cold all over." One of the main reasons why was that his theory was unable to account for the eyeball's flawless structures and complexity. The illusory mechanisms of evolution could not have given rise to such a complex organ. To prove that the eye could have come into being through the imaginary phases of evolution, Darwin needed to reduce the eye's components to very simple forms-but this he was unable to do.

How did such a complex organ emerge? The lack of any explanation is as great a dilemma for present-day adherents of the theory of evolution as it was for its original architects. Darwinists encounter this dilemma wherever they encounter complexity. How could such intricate variety have come into existence by way of a trial-and-error process that, they maintained, took place over the course of millions of years? Evolutionists cannot offer any logical scenario to answer that question.

The Cambrian Period

Life on Earth exhibits the most amazing variety. From the Poles to the Amazon, from mountain peaks to the ocean deeps, our planet overflows with an endless variety of life forms. Its many organisms, from bacteria to worms, from ants to trees, from sea gulls to dolphins, have each been equipped with extraordinarily sensitive systems and gloriously complex structures, thanks to which they can survive in such close harmony with their environment. These systems, whose details are still being discovered by biologists, contain features that astonish human beings.

Scientists and thinkers have investigated nature in all periods of history, witnessed its flawless harmony and planning, and have sought to answer such questions as these:

The Cambrian, Evolution And Creation

Before moving on to consider the Cambrian explosion itself, we first need to briefly compare what features are to be expected from the fossil record according to the theory of evolution, versus creation.

Darwin's theory of evolution claims that all forms of life are descended from one original single cell. According to that claim, all the millions of plant and animal species must have descended from this single cell. In the fossil record, therefore, there should exist various traces of the "family tree" deriving from this common ancestor. Evolutionists maintain that there is a direct line of descent between this imaginary first cell and all later living species, from fish to primates and from octopuses to frogs. If this hypothesis is true, then it should have left available traces. Namely:

The Origin Of Species According To The Fossil Record

When Charles Darwin published his On the Origin of Species in 1859, he set out his own ideas on their origin and claimed that this was based on various mechanisms of the imaginary evolutionary process.

According to his thinking, evolution led to minute changes in species through these mechanisms; and these differences then increased, until every new living species developed from some previous one, as a result of very small changes. Again according to the theory, living species are not distinguished from one another by major anatomical differences, but begin diverging from one another through minuscule variations.

This implies that all living things are related to one another. One living species experienced random and gradual changes over a period of time lasting for millions of years, at the end of which its descendents have developed into another species entirely. In that case, evidence of the long transformation period-fossils of at least some of the various intermediate forms-should exist in the Earth's fossil record. Since they lived in a kind of transitional period, many of these transitional forms had yet to complete the development of their more sophisticated organs, and must have been deformed, crippled and deficient in some way.

Since this supposed process of evolutionary change lasted for millions of years, these alleged intermediate forms must have existed on Earth for almost the entire intervening time-and should have left a great many surviving traces in the fossil record.

Yet The Fossil Findings Were Incompatible With Darwin's Theory!

Cambrian fossils discovered in Wales dealt a severe blow to the classification with which Darwin set out his theory. The Cambrian Period (from 542 to 488 million years ago), the oldest in the history of multi-cellular organisms, represented the sudden emergence of a great many phyla and classes of animals, all in their fully formed states, in an environment where only single-celled organisms had existed before. To put it another way, biology operated in the exact opposite manner of what Darwin predicted: Phyla emerged along with individual species, not afterward.

No doubt, this was a matter of concern for any evolutionist! Darwin himself was well aware of the results already emerging from the fossil discoveries of his own day, and he described this as one of the gravest difficulties that could threaten his theory:

Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian* [Cambrian] stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.4

But Darwin Was Wrong!

Our current knowledge regarding the pre-Cambrian is doubtless much more complete than it was in Darwin's time. Ever since then, enormous research has been conducted into pre-Cambrian fossils-and the emerging results have actually made the problems facing evolutionists even more difficult, rather than resolving Darwin's original concerns. New Cambrian fossil beds were discovered in Canada, Greenland and China.8

Darwin thought that the evidence necessary to prove his theory would be obtained through future fossil discoveries. However, improvements in technology and advances in the fields of genetics, biology, biochemistry and medicine, and the wide-ranging fossil findings, all revealed facts that would totally eliminate his theory.