“Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye be wise? He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He that formed the eye, shall he not see? He that chastiseth the heathen, shall not he correct? He that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know?” (Psalm 94:8-11)
Evolutionary theory violates the intuitive first principles of man’s rational being. (“It don’t make no sense.”) All human beings depend upon the Law of Cause and Effect to be able to function rationally in an ordered world.
Consider what everyone knows with certainty when they see a car: Some “cause” (working with existing raw materials), used energy, skill, information, and intelligence to fabricate that automobile (the effect). There is only one reasonable cause on the planet sufficient to construct such a sophisticated piece of technology, man. No sane person would propose random events as the cause for a car.
If we go on to consider the problem of the origin (existence) of the materials themselves - and the rest of the ordered universe - and the man that made the car - we have a unique situation in which we must apply the Law of Cause and Effect.
Two things guide our reasoning. First, science testifies that the materials are not eternal but have a beginning in time. Second, well understood scientific laws teach us natural processes never create anything out of nothing. This means essentially that there was a point of time before which nature did not exist and after which it all existed. There must be a sufficient cause.
This imposes necessary constraints in applying the Law of Cause and Effect. We may not proceed in an unthinking fashion that would force us through endless cycles of reasoning from effect to cause to cause to cause forever. That approach would keep us from ever arriving at a beginning and so necessitate an eternal universe (which we know is untrue). In effect, reason teaches us we can never solve the problem of origins by formulating a Law of Cause and Effect, which proves to be inherently atheistic.
We conclude that we are compelled by logical necessity to recognize a very special kind of cause that is above the processes of nature. This cause must accomplish what nature cannot. That is, it must be supernatural.
Since nature is known to be limited by time and incapable of self-creation, the cause must be above time (eternal) and itself uncaused (self-existent). This is the only option. In a temporal caused universe, ultimate origins cannot be attributed to something else that is caused. That only pushes the question of a sufficient cause outside of consideration. The only consistent, logical explanation for the origin of the universe as we know it is a first cause that has underived existence.
Further, we conclude a “cause”, which could give existence to the universe, must be powerful beyond anything known in nature and have sufficient intelligence to account for the intricate design and beauty we all observe. The cause must also have life and personality and a moral nature since He gave all these things to mankind. Surely the Creator must not be less than the creation. So without opening the Bible we must conclude an all-powerful, all-wise, eternal, immense, living, personal, holy Creator brought the universe into existence. (The Bible is, of course in hearty agreement.)
The insistence by evolutionists that natural processes must account for origins is a canard that cannot rationally be true. It defies reason and is inconsistent with all the known observed laws and natural processes of the universe. Why would anybody propose a theory like that, and then have the audacity to pretend that they represent the interests of science? The real facts of the case make it clear which side of the debate is truly supported by science and which side rests upon an insupportable claim that can only be described as part of a religious belief structure.