There are many online claims about the power of evolution to create new biological traits. Some evolutionists have speculated that evolution can account for altruism, but I exposed the deficiency in the “explanations” here. And while evolutionists claim that “nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution”, they have swept under the rug evolution’s inability to explain biological software.

This week, I asked a God-denier to explain how “reasoning” could be explained via natural causes. This God-denier posted a link which was supposed to provide evidence and confirmation that evolution can explain the origins of reasoning. Being the intrepid ApoloJedi that I am, I read through the contents of the article and have analyzed it to see if it could make good on its claims. Of note, I regard this article to be poorly formatted and absent of any explanatory power, so I expect there will be a future blog post entitled “Can Evolution Explain Reason – Part 2?” when a subsequent God-denier doubtlessly posts another wild assertion that naturalistic causes can explain the origins of reasoning.

The article in question has been cited 10 times and accessed over 1000 times and much of it is hidden behind a paywall (remaining unanalyzed). There are 30 notes organized in a list. In the analysis I quote the pertinent piece from the note above in Italics and my comment below each is in Bold. Without further delay, here’s the analysis

Abstract:
“I conjecture that reasoning evolved primarily because it helped social hominins more readily and fully align their intentions“
Conjecture indeed

1. “first article”
   Hidden (hidden like evidence for evolution) behind a pay wall
2. “purpose of reasoning”
   Purpose/teleology is a concept that is incompatible with the primary naturalist assumptions AND does not explain the origin of reasoning
3. Nothing in this note explains the origin of reasoning from non-reasoning sources
4. “argumentative posturing”
   Assumes that reasoning already exists AND does not explain the origin of reasoning
5. “moral emotions…loyalty, gratitude, sympathy”
   Morality is a concept that is incompatible with the primary naturalist assumptions AND does not explain the origin of reasoning
6. “Imagine…reasons”
   Imagine indeed AND does not explain the origin of reasoning
7. “likely”
   Not evidence AND does not explain the origin of reasoning
8. “those with a preference for going right will often capitulate by joining the majority”
   This very clearly shows the absence of reason AND does not explain the origin of reasoning
9. “The odds of surviving might be enhanced, for example, by keeping mum about a fruit tree discovered while scouting”
   While evolutionists crone about how empathy drive social advancements, this note is literally contrary to that assumption AND does not explain the origin of reasoning
   Also, in conflict with Note 14
10. “team agency” & “team reasoning” & “gestational reasoning” & “group’s collective intent”
    Purpose/teleology is a concept that is incompatible with the primary naturalist assumptions AND does not explain the origin of reasoning
11. “giving of reasons counts as a kind of reasoning”
    Circular. Tautology. Assumes that reasoning already exists AND does not explain the origin of reasoning
12. “My claim here is that the faculty of reason played—and continues to play—a critical role”
    Assumes that reasoning already exists AND does not explain the origin of reasoning
13. “By calling manipulative reasoning…”
    Assumes that reasoning already exists AND does not explain the origin of reasoning
14. “collaborative reasoning” & “When reasoning together”
    Assumes that reasoning already exists AND does not explain the origin of reasoning
    Also, in conflict with Note 9
15. Nothing in this note explains the origin of reasoning from non-reasoning sources
16. “may have been made possible by the prior emergence of basic reasoning aptitudes. The claim is conjectural, but worth further exploration”
    Conjecture indeed AND does not explain the origin of reasoning
17. “it is not incorrect to speak of intention alignment as the primary utility or purpose of reasoning”
    Pragmatism is insufficient AND does not explain the origin of reasoning
18. “I take it up presently”
    It IS an important question AND does not explain the origin of reasoning
19. ” ‘mind writing’ involves intentional or deliberate alteration”
    Assumes that reasoning already exists AND does not explain the origin of reasoning
20. “The ethical implications of IAM are significant, and well worth exploring”
    Assumes that reasoning already exists AND does not explain the origin of reasoning
21. Another article behind a paywall, but the abstract does not explain the origins of reasoning from non-reasoning sources
22. “if we could be sure that a bee’s nervous system supported something properly described as a mind”
    Humans did not evolve from bees AND does not explain the origin of reasoning
23. “complex social practice built atop basic reason-giving propensities”
    Difficulties with the naturalistic origins brought up AND does not explain the origin of reasoning
24. Another article behind a paywall, but the abstract does not explain the origins of reasoning from non-reasoning sources
25. “my aim here is not to decide the question, but make a preliminary case that IAM belongs in the discussion”
    An introduction to a hypothesis AND does not explain the origin of reasoning
26. Nothing in this note explains the origin of reasoning from non-reasoning sources
27. Nothing in this note explains the origin of reasoning from non-reasoning sources
28. Nothing in this note explains the origin of reasoning from non-reasoning sources
29. Nothing in this note explains the origin of reasoning from non-reasoning sources
30. Nothing in this note explains the origin of reasoning from non-reasoning sources

As you can clearly see, this linked article has given us no explanation for the naturalistic origin of reasoning via evolutionary forces. We did see some internal contradictions, and it was strong on assertions, but ended up be short on both evidence and justification

Disclaimer: Because God has revealed in his eternal Word that He has is the Source of reasoning, we know that the answer to the question “Can Evolution Explain Reason?” is most assuredly no. But as has been the case with other posts in this series, I have taken the claims of the naturalists and analyzed them within their own worldview, to see if their claims are valid. And just like the other posts, their claims are shown to be severely lacking.