If I gave you 15 seconds you could come up with a pat evolutionary just-so story to account for this, speculating on what reproductive advantage it serves.
Something immaterial can’t have an effect on the material realm, presumably, so how would it be selected as advantageous by Darwinian natural selection?
Lennox: “Stephen Hawking was a brilliant mathematician and a genius. But he had no idea about philosophy.”
“I owe him an immense amount because although he wasn’t a scientist, he understood science. He understood the implications and the philosophy of science.”
She acknowledges that she is speaking from outside one relevant field. Can you really use physics to deny free will while ignoring neuroscience?