Evolutionary explanation of morality self-refuting?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

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).

The proof is in the pudding - not the making of it. You don't ask the cook exactly how he made the pudding to judge whether it is tasty or not, you eat it and find out.

How can we know that evolution has given us the faculty to know the truth? Because we can actually find out the truth by using it. It works.

Could this faculty have been absent or completely opposite given a different course of evolution? Ofcourse. The multitude of animals who don't have the same faculty are evidence of that.

Is there a guarantee that evolution would always give us the ability to know the truth? No. In fact, it'd be highly unlikely. Why would that matter?

Can we rely on this faculty of reason given that the chances of this faculty emerging in another evolutionary chain are extremely low?
Why not? Does the man who wins the lottery refuse to take the money because the chances of his winning were extremely low? The only thing that matters is that it works. Use it or lose it.

You seem to assume that our faculties can know truth though. I'm asking how can we know that we can know what's true. For instance, maybe 'x' can really equal 'non-x' in reality but because of evolutionary processes, we can't comprehend that truth because it wasn't beneficial to our survival. Theists would say that because God is good and that God is truth, he'd ensure mankind would have the ability to know truth. I'm not seeing any such guarantee from a naturalistic point of view.