Deep within the bowels of the atom--where the eye of man cannot see--researchers have had to feel around the dark, as it were. But particle physicists are not blind. They have access to the universal language of mathematics which accurately describes and predicts how the universe works and ought to work. This includes those parts which are so small we cannot see them; we can only see traces of them, fleeting signatures as sub-atomic particles are accelerated to travel at unbelievable speeds and crash into each other.
The effects of the crashes tell us something about their properties and how the sub-atomic particles work. But all along mathematics is predicting how these things will work, what will happen and what physicists should expect to find.
That is weird (if you are an Unbeliever). There is no rationalistic explanation for that.
Moreover, it turns out these particles operate completely differently to how the macro-world operates. Given such a reality, the evolutionary cosmology stutters then fades into silence.
. . . . given evolution we should expect humans to be entirely unable to discover laws having no bearing upon survival. Even Dawkins concedes that "we never evolved to navigate the world of atoms", rather, "our brains have evolved to help our bodies find their way around the world on the scale at which those bodies operate".Yet--and here it does get spooky if you are an Unbeliever--by means of mathematics we can understand, describe, and predict what is happening, not just in the world of particle physics here on earth, but with the application of maths we can analyse what is happening in the farthest reaches of the universe.
Evolution the seems to have left us wholly unprepared for particle physics. For one thing, the discoveries of contemporary physics are not only about phenomena that are forever unobservable (no matter how good our instruments are, we can never detect some of these); these phenomena also behave radically different from the world that allegedly governed our ancestors' cognitive development. [Mitch Stokes, A Shot of Faith to the Head (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2012), p. 170.]
If that can be done, evolutionism cannot possibly be true. If it were true, such things would not be real.