Picture if you will a lone cell, a original cell, of no particular kind or purpose. It is existing somewhere doing nothing, going nowhere, making no changes or decisions because it is inanimate.
Now from this inauspicious beginning the cell is supposed to do something. Specifically scientists would have us assume that it makes a decision to “improve.” Perhaps it divides into 2 cells, that is an improvement as 2 is better than 1. Perhaps. After all if it is a bad cell, like a cancer cell, we’d be happier if it did not increase.
But scientists say this double cell now decides, makes up its mind, perhaps assumes that it is going to be better and create something better than itself.
What kind of nonsense is this? Good and bad are moral choices. How does a non-moral cell make a moral choice to be “better” and what just is “better” to an inanimate object? And who suggested good vs. bad to this lonely cell.
And why would an inanimate cell which has no moral roots just as often decide not to improve, grow, evolve into something superior? Perhaps a cell would simply choose to be a zero thing, not evolving but better still devolving into nothingness. It could just as well lie on the bottom of something doing nothing.
If we eliminate God from the process of creation we must also remove from it the choice of good over evil, or in reverse, choosing evil over good. But the natural universe cannot do that because, according to the believers in evolution, there is no moral choice available; all life improves.
We must conclude that a universe that improves in any way has behind it some intellect that knows the difference between good and bad and makes a choice about the future of the created world.
My mother taught me the difference between good and bad; who taught the cell?