Evolutionary explanation of morality self-refuting?

[FallentoReason]

Let's put it this way. You don't need to know that your reasoning faculty came from evolutionary processes to know that it can be used to verify what is true and what is not. This is our correct starting point here and it can be demonstrated in many other ways, none of which would have anything to do with evolutionary processes. In fact, we've been using our reasoning faculty to do that since before

Darwin himself feared that our cognitive faculties aren't reliable. Here's the beast that we're dealing with that explains why your reasoning is circular reasoning:

The worry can be put as follows. According to orthodox Darwinism, the process of evolution is driven mainly by two mechanisms: random genetic mutation and natural selection. The former is the chief source of genetic variability; by virtue of the latter, a mutation resulting in a heritable, fitness-enhancing trait is likely to spread through that population and be preserved as part of the genome. It is fitness-enhancing behavior and traits that get rewarded by natural selection; what get penalized are maladaptive traits and behaviors. In crafting our cognitive faculties, natural selection will favor cognitive faculties and processes that result in adaptive behavior; it cares not a whit about true belief (as such) or about cognitive faculties that reliably give rise to true belief. As evolutionary psychologist Donald Sloan Wilson puts it, “the well-adapted mind is ultimately an organ of survival and reproduction” (Wilson 2002, 228). What our minds are for (if anything) is not the production of true beliefs, but the production of adaptive behavior: that our species has survived and evolved at most guarantees that our behavior is adaptive; it does not guarantee or even make it likely that our belief-producing processes are for the most part reliable, or that our beliefs are for the most part true. That is because our behavior could perfectly well be adaptive, but our beliefs false as often as true. Darwin himself apparently worried about this question: “With me,” says Darwin,

the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? (Darwin 1887)

We can briefly state Darwin's doubt as follows. Let R be the proposition that our cognitive faculties are reliable, N the proposition that naturalism is true and E the proposition that we and our cognitive faculties have come to be by way of the processes to which contemporary evolutionary theory points us: what is the conditional probability of R on N&E? I.e., what is P(R | N&E)? Darwin fears it may be rather low.

We can state the argument schematically as follows:

1. P(R | N&E) is low.
2. Anyone who accepts N&E and sees that (1) is true has a defeater for R.
3. Anyone who has a defeater for R has a defeater for any other belief she holds, including N&E itself.
Therefore

Anyone who accepts N&E and sees that (1) is true has a defeater for N&E; hence N&E can't be rationally accepted.

That is what we've established here. We see that objective moral values must be independent of god and therefore, god is irrelevant to objective standards of morality. The good and bad can be determined without any reference to god and therefore, Craig's statement that you cannot have objective moral values without god is wrong.

Agreed. All I was saying was that you went the extra step and made a baseless assertion that God cannot exist if what is good is apart from him. I don't see that as a reasonable conclusion, that is all.