There are entirely separate theories to explain how that matter, after it arose, interacts with itself to give rise to chemistry. Then there is the origin of life, which is another problem. And then we get to evolution, which is how the initial life modified itself to become the species we have today. And then we have a bunch of other theories that explain how the brain operates.
Any one of these theories could be wrong, but that wouldn't invalidate any of the other ones. Some of them we have much more data and certainty on then others. But the only people that talk as if they were the same thing are creationists, not scientists.
What do you mean, "the same thing"?
Are you implying the evolution of matter into chemistry into life into consciousness is not an interconnected process?
Just because it's hard to define the lines between inorganic life, simple life, and sentient life, it doesn't mean there's no distinction.
... and prescient life. Don't forget the next stage on from sentience. The line between sentience and prescience also seems blurred, given how many humans nowadays report having flashes of the future.
The real question is not consciousness, but why the laws of physics are perfectly tuned for its existence.
The Anthropic Principle rightly points out that the question of "why does the universe support life" is fundamentally circular.
Didn't all organic life arise from inorganic molecular structures like rocks?
As a result of the theory of the big bang, molecular structures have progressively evolved in complexity, eventually becoming so complex that the boundaries of physics and chemistry are transcended into biology, life, and consciousness.
This suggests that "rocks" -- inorganic molecular structures -- indeed have "intentions" to the extent that they are primordial building blocks of consciousness