Evolutionary explanation of morality self-refuting?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Hmm. I think what Craig is trying to say is that the argument suffers from similar problems that a statement such as "everything is subjective" suffers from which is a self-refuting statement since the claim itself is objective. I don't think he's saying that evolution leads to skepticism in itself. He's saying that using evolution to explain moral tendencies and only moral tendencies is an arbitrary stopping point because there's no reason not to then ask "...is reason merely the result of evolutionary processes too?" Basically, he thinks this boils down to equivalent of saying "everything is the result of evolutionary processes" which would supposedly then makes this statement self-refuting because "everything" includes knowledge, reason, truth, etc, which the statement itself is trying to use to prove its point.

I still don't see any problem here. The statement "everything is subjective" is self-refuting because with that premise the opposite "everything is not subjective" becomes equally true. And who's stopping at morality? Evolutionary scientists try to find the evolutionary basis for all human behavior, not just morality. Further, I showed you why the statement "everything is a result of evolutionary process is not self-refuting" - though that statement is certainly not true. Only human capacities would be the result of evolutionary processes, that is only our capacity to reason, to know, to be moral etc. Knowledge and truth would still be independent of evolutionary process.

Finally, I think you are trying to indicate circular reasoning here. That's wrong as well. Evolutionary processes gave rise to our reasoning faculty. Using our reasoning faculty, we can actually verify the previous statement. That is not circular, because the first statement does not form a part of the second.

But, from an atheistic perspective, if reason is the result of evolution, then how do we know that the process of evolution has given us the faculties to properly know what really is true? Perhaps it has given us faculties that cannot discern what is really true because it was better for our survival? From a theist perspective, they think God would have (assuming they're theistic evolutionists) guided evolution to give man the ability to know truth. From a theists point of view, in purely naturalistic universe, there's no guarantee that evolution would give us the ability to know truth (because delusion might be better for survival).