The idea that humans are merely animals, having evolved to a higher life form than all other creatures, fails to explain numerous realities. Evolutionists reject any notion of God in general and the idea of man's creation after the image of the Almighty in particular. Yet, experience describes an altogether different story. Mankind alone possesses a conscience that provides for understanding right and wrong. This is an innate knowledge that requires no training concerning moral laws. A person feels guilt when they violate their conscience. Humans are hardwired to understand the universe around them and seek answers to the significant ethical questions regarding life. There is no naturalistic mechanism that would explain how the existence of morality could arise from the physical structure of the human brain alone.
Evolution does not require a conscience, so it must be concluded that human beings are reduced to their physical properties. Mental function is merely a chemical activity. This view does not distinguish between the brain and the mind. Philosopher Michael Ruse conjectured about this problem, “Why should a bunch of atoms have thinking ability? Why should I, even as I write now, be able to reflect on what I am doing…there is no scientific answer.” There can ultimately be no good or evil if humans are essentially organic automatons. Some may argue that morality and conscience could result from social evolution, but this fails to explain why people feel compelled to act morally even when it goes against their self-interest or the norms of society.
A primary tenant of evolutionary teaching is that species develop characteristics that benefit their progression. Stating man evolved from apes, which possess no conscience, appears inconsistent since humans are highly ethical beings. For instance, humans have developed complex systems of justice and fairness, which have no clear evolutionary advantage, yet are universally recognized as ‘good.’ If humans are the product of evolution, it stands to reason that conscience, which often compels people to act against their self-interest for the sake of ‘right', is a nuisance and unnecessary. It would stymie the development of a species as it moved forward.
A seemingly obvious conclusion to draw is that the conscience serves as a reminder that humans are not simply part of naturalistic processes. The conscience is part of the human code that determines what people are. This software reveals mankind has a Creator, for such programming presupposes a programmer. Evolution is capable of no such thing. Therefore, God is the only rational conclusion at which to arrive.
.png)
