The cosmos is just because it is good; and it is good because it is the creation of God, who is the Good.
If the cosmos were not just, then righteous conduct could not be well fitted to reality, and would not therefore have proven to be adaptive. There could not then be such a category as righteousness. You can’t behave rightly if there’s no such thing as a right way to behave.
The fact that evolution has generated codes of righteous conduct – of formalized moral laws – does not then indicate that morality is nothing more than a happenstantial product of iterated memetic variation under selection pressures. On the contrary, it indicates that morality is an aspect of the cosmic landscape that is prior to biological evolution, and pervasively conditions it, *so that* iterated rounds of selection by the morally ordered cosmic landscape on memetic variations can occur in the first place, and proceed to generate in organisms moral sentiments that are more or less well-fitted to their world.
No cosmic order, then no selector, and no selection.
More generally, the naturalist suggestion that biological order is merely happenstantial, in the sense that the orderly structures of living organisms are nothing but what has for no reason happened to survive, is contradictory: for, mere happenstance is the antithesis of order. The naturalist suggestion then itself reduces to the notion that there is simply no such thing as biological order – nothing out there for biology to study, and nothing about living organisms that calls for explanation of any sort, or that could possibly be explained.
Finally, to say that a trait is fitted to the world is first to presuppose that its world is ordered, and second is to say that it is fitly ordered toward that world. And that is to say that the trait is intensional – is teleological.