Alvin Plantinga questions that evolution alone can result in humans having reliable beliefs, and uses this as an argument against naturalism. As you might expect, I disagree!
Let's take an example that has been mentioned in this context: why would a human run away from a predator (say, a hungry tiger). There are a large number of false beliefs that would result in someone escaping from a tiger: the tiger wants to play, and running away will be fun! Tigers remind me of apples, so I'll go climb that tree and get some. Tigers have some magic ability to cause floods, so I had better get somewhere high away from the tiger.
It's true - there are plenty of false beliefs that can result in escape, but these are all fragile and isolated. A belief about a tiger won't be protective against a lion. A belief that one should seek apples won't work if there are no apple trees. All of these false beliefs can result in death by tiger if there is a slight change in circumstance.
True beliefs, on the other hand, are both robust and versatile. A true belief that a tiger is dangerous because of its teeth and claws works with bears, lions, crocodiles, even snakes (just look at those fangs!). True beliefs can survive the 'Chinese whispers' process of cultural transmission because they are hugely simpler than convoluted false beliefs, and because true beliefs are actually true - they survive continual testing against reality. The belief that tigers cause floods doesn't survive such tests.
One basic reason why such true beliefs arise and how they persist is because what is going on in both evolution and culture is a form of science: beliefs and mental faculties are being varied randomly and tested against reality with survival as the result of successful experiments.
Another reason why true beliefs are more robust is that they can fit together: true beliefs can combine to form new beliefs which extend our ability to survive. We know that bears are strong (one truth), and we know that their teeth are dangerous (another truth), so we should definitely avoid angry bears.
Of course, these days there are aspects of reality that are beyond unaided human faculties. We investigate those aspects of reality using science intentionally, and not just incidentally. We have computers that can think and reason far faster and more reliably than we can. We have instruments that can extend the reach of our senses to astronomical degrees.
The key thing here is that evolution tends to result in reliable cognitive faculties about the environment we evolved in because evolution is itself a form of natural science - Nature tested against Nature.