The answer is no. The only thing that produces complex, non-repeating, specified order is an intelligent agent. The logical conclusion of Darwinism is that all our actions are the results of brain states produced by some combination of chance and physical law-which undermines the very notion of moral choice. That's dismissed as old-fashioned dualism. For example, Steven Pinker of MIT says the idea of a unified self is merely a useful illusion, selected by evolution because our body needs to be able to go one direction at a time.
Computers function without consciousness.
Philosopher Paul Churchland says mental states do not exist, and suggests that we replace language about beliefs and desires with statements about the nervous system's physical mechanisms-the activation of neurons and so on. This conclusion is so contrary to ordinary experience that many neuroscientists search for some cut-off point where the logic of Darwinism does not apply. But, of course, any stopping point is completely arbitrary. John Searle, my famous colleague here at Berkeley, accepts naturalistic evolution while insisting that it cannot explain the human mind. Critics say he simply jumps ship, and they're right.