The argument proves too much. If unguided evolution undermines trust in reason, it undermines the theist’s reason too, since theistic evolutionists accept the same evolutionary history.

The argument targets naturalism plus evolution, not evolution alone, because a theist can hold that reliable minds were intended. The fair follow-up is that guided evolution is an unfalsifiable add-on, and that is partly right; but the argument is not offered as evidence for God. It is offered as a problem for one specific combination of views. A theist who accepts evolution has a reason to expect reliable cognition; a naturalist has to derive it from selection pressures alone, and that derivation is the step in dispute.