[gcruse]

 if we are made in the image of God, the ultimate knower, then divine providence can be counted
on to have supplied us with reliable cognitive faculties.

In which  case our construction of Darwinism can be counted on to be reliable.

[AndrewC]

In which case our construction of Darwinism can be counted on to be reliable.

Free will allows for mistakes to be made.

[The_Reader_David]

I am willing for the moment as a rhetorical point concede that the "construction of Darwinism" is reliable. It is, however, not scientific. The notion of "natural selection" as standardly applied is tautological, and thus not scientific in the Popperian sense.

What is unreliable is ignoring the fact that a scientific, falsifiable, prediction-generating version of "fitness" will involve laws, and that the resulting law-constrained stochastic search does not have the philosophical content needed to make Darwinism into an atheistic argument-from-no-design.

Retracting my rhetorical concession, I would point out that which is created in the image and likeness of God is also in the same account marred by an action which separates him (us) from the ultimate knower. The perfectly built telescope with a smudged mirror will show false images, so the disordered senses, reason and noetic faculty of Man is no longer necessarily a reliable guide to truth.