Unfortunately for Evolutionists, morality is a concept exclusive to spiritual beings. Mankind has a concept of morality, but the universe as a whole is, as Richard Dawkins put it, blind, and pitilessly indifferent. If the big bang ever happened, were there any moral laws? Of course not, there were no agents to obey them. When the first pond spit out the first living cell, were there any moral laws? Of course not. A cell has no ability to comprehend such things. When our supposed ancestors evolved into fish, did moral laws exist? Look at the ocean today, there is no such thing as morality there.
Follow our alleged Evolutionary history, there is no event that could objectively bind anything to any moral law. The universe continues to operate, animals continue to act in their own ways (most of them in ways we, as humans, would find abhorrent in other humans), and there is no sign of morality anywhere. So, at what point did we become bound to moral laws? Answer: At no point did we become bound to any moral laws.
If Evolution is true, moral laws are just something we, as a species, have made up. They are desires we have, likely due to our environment. But they're not binding on anyone. If we want to break each other's moral laws, nothing prevents us except fear, and failing that, physical force.
Is this really the world we live in? Do we really live in a world that is completely indifferent to what we do? Thankfully, God did not program us to believe so. Rather, the Bible says the law is written on our hearts. Thus, while we obviously need further guidance from God, we at least instinctively recognise that there are moral laws, and worse than that, we have all violated them. We are all failures.
The bad news is, because of this failure, we deserve punishment. The good news is, God is not willing that any should perish. Therefore, knowing ahead of time that we would fail, He also set up a plan ahead of time to redeem us. 2,000 years ago, He sent Jesus to earth to be born of a virgin and live a perfect life. When the time was right, Jesus died on a cross, receiving in Himself the full penalty for our sin. Therefore, all who repent of their sin, confess Him as Lord, and believe in our hearts God raised Him from the dead, will be saved. Therefore, repent, confess, believe, get baptised, get connected with your spiritual family.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An attempted response from an Evolutionist
When this article was originally published as a post on the God Squad Apologetics Facebook page, an atheist attempted to respond with the following:
"Morality is found in some animals. That alone impugns your whole theory. We don't have an instinctive drive to kill one another. But we have a drive to destroy this planet and hurt other animals. Look around you. Can't you see that ours is a species-centred morality? We don't even agree on our so-called moral values. Why would anyone think that morality is objective?"
Because no specific examples were given, it is hard to refute the claim that "morality is found in some animals". However, a general response is simply that what is called "morality" in animals is really just behavior. Animals are living beings, and of course they seek to continue living, thus they do behave in certain ways. You can even teach some animals obedience to your own moral views. Dogs are an obvious example. These can even be trained, even for police and military purposes.
The difference, however, is motive. Even a dog in police or military practice doesn't even understand morality. They can't discuss the moral implications of their actions. Do you think a dog cares when it is used to hunt down a man whose sole "crime" was political dissent? Does it even understand what crime is? Of course not!
You see, then, that the difference between morality in humans and "morality" in animals is "ought" and "is". Simply doing things isn't morality. A robot can do things. But human beings are the only ones capable of considering the implications of what we do.
The Evolutionist contradicted himself a few times after this. First, he said we have a drive to destroy the planet and hurt other animals. Then he said ours is a species-centric morality. But he also said we don't even agree on morality. So which is it? Do we have a species-centric, destructive, malicious moral drive, or are we all divided on morality?
The answer is yes, we are divided on morality. So much so that actually, no, we don't all have a drive to destroy the planet, harm other animals, or focus exclusively on our own species. The very existence of Theistic religion, regardless of where you think it came from, shows this. Christianity in particular teaches that we are stewards over God's creation, which gives us a responsibility to look after the planet. We are further bound to respect the animals over which we have been given charge.
Of course, we don't necessarily need God to have a drive to protect the environment, or lack the drive to hurt animals. Personally, I've loved animals since way before I was a Christian, even before I was old enough to comprehend what Christianity is. Many atheists are environmentalists, vegetarians, even vegans, because they do not have a drive to hurt animals.
So, even the Evolutionist admits that we don't all agree on morality, but then he asks "Why would anyone think that morality is objective?" Well, most people do, even within the atheist community. But the reason to believe morality is objective, other than the fact it is, is that morality is either objective, or futile. We all have subjective opinions. I, for example, believe lemon is the best ice cream flavor, green is the best color, and rock is the best music genre. What idiot would debate these things? They're my opinions. I can't bind them on you, nor can you bind your contrary opinions on me. It is natural to disagree about them, but stupid to debate about them. You can't get arrested for having red as your favorite color, and a lunatic who thought you should would hopefully never get into office (although given our current political climate, it wouldn't surprise me).
We can even compare the implications of two types of laws. Tell me, what side of the road should we be required to drive on? England and America have opposite laws. The British drive on the left, whereas Americans drive on the right. Any sane person will tell you that neither law is right or wrong. It's not good to drive on the left, nor evil to drive on the right. The main objection to changing the side of the road we drive on would be "there's no point doing it, and it would be a logistical nightmare". But now tell me if we should legalise honor killings? In the UK, these are still illegal. In Jordan, however, they carry little to no punishment (1). Now, is it ok to kill your own daughter because she committed adultery? Suddenly, we recognise that the answer is more right and wrong than right and left.
So, even those who are crazy enough to claim morality is not objective, by instinct, recognise that they are wrong. We know morality is objective. But why is it objective? Simple: Moral laws require a moral legislator. Obviously, as a Christian, I contend that legislator is God. When He says "thou shalt", you're wrong if you don't. When He says "thou shalt not", you're wrong if you do. When He says nothing, you can afford to make up your own mind.
References
1. Singh, Raghu N. and Dailey, J. Douglas. - "Honor killing". Encyclopedia Britannica, 3 Aug. 2016 (link)