I'm not sure why you feel the need to introduce philosophical qualities to biological functions. Again: I believe that the Theory of Evolution, i.e diversification through the expression of heritable genetic traits that confer a reproductive advantage, best explains, using all available information, the diversity of life on Earth.
Because science is not without its philosophical presuppositions. It is a slave to philosphy. Science cannot be done without the scientist having a philosphical position. Let's take you. Rather than answer my question and offer a warranted true belief that you know evolution accounts for the variety of biological organisms on earth, you say, "Again: I believe.....". And that is based upon your...what...your assessment of date which you have been exposed to. Others, very thoughtful, would say, "Again": I believe.......the specified complexity of the DNA molecule and the information therein offer another explication", of what they believe.
Belief is the operative word here, for the evolutionist and those who believe in some form of theistic creation. ..."philosophical qualities to biological functions"...I do not agree that I introduced philosophical qualities to biological functions. I did ask how the brain, via natural selection could select for truth. It seems in ones attempt to understand biological functions the biologist needs confidence in his assessment for what the truth is and what the truth is not. My point is, you fail to recognize your a priori presuppositions. You deny they exist then offer insipid critiques to those who hold a different view.
For the record, you did not offer any warrant that evolution is truth. You offered no explication that you have any reason whatsoever to believe anything due to you explaination of how evolution 'produced' our cognitive faculties which can assess for truth; thus why do you believe anything? These are not small questions for the materialist naturalist. He must either account epistemically for them of abandon his assertions,.....if he wishes to be consistent.
My formal education is not in philosphy. All disciplines require a philosophical application to those diciplines. I will listen to anyone who is reasonable and consistent, but consistency seems to evade many evolutionists. I would think the young Rice University student needs to firm up his views of what is true and what is not true, seek to apply some consistency to his statements, and, if not, be prepared for questions like I asked you.