For us creationists, the answer is always "God made it that way."
There is no operative difference between that answer and the answer "just because".
The only scientific question is, what (if any) natural laws did He set in place to make it happen, and what good for mankind can come from learning how those natural laws operate.
Well, there are at least two questions there, but, that aside, the second question doesn't appear to be a scientific question. As for the first question, isn't evolution theory in fact an attempt to understand what are the natural laws that underlie the development of life? How else would one characterize it? Surely you're not suggesting that there are no natural laws underlying the origin and development of life, are you?
You have the right to perceive it as you wish.
"the second question doesn't appear to be a scientific question."
Maybe you're missing the point. Lets take 'splitting the atom' for example. Science found it could split the atom - the question then became what could be done with that information.
"As for the first question, isn't evolution theory in fact an attempt to understand what are the natural laws that underlie the development of life?"
It is an attempt, yes. Whether it is deemed a good and honest attempt is a matter of opinion.
"Surely you're not suggesting that there are no natural laws underlying the origin and development of life, are you?"
My belief is that God created pretty much as scripture states (although probably not in 6 earth days). He has set natural laws in place which keep life going. (Even the bonding of protons and electrons into atoms is important to sustaining life.)
If you prefer to believe that life evolved from non-life, that is completely up to you. I do not.