[2] Contemporary philosophers who have employed a similar argument against physical determinism are James Jordan and William Hasker.
[4] In the twelfth chapter of his book Warrant and Proper Function, Plantinga developed Lewis' idea,[3] and constructed two formal arguments against evolutionary naturalism.
[10] In the 2008 publication Knowledge of God Plantinga presented a formulation of the argument that solely focused on semantic epiphenomenalism instead of the former four jointly exhaustive categories.
[12] Plantinga argues that combining naturalism and evolution is self-defeating, because, under these assumptions, the probability that humans have reliable cognitive faculties is low or inscrutable.
Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?In the letter, Darwin had expressed agreement with William Graham's claim that natural laws implied purpose and the belief that the universe was "not the result of chance", but again showed his doubts about such beliefs and left the matter as insoluble.
[19] Others, such as Evan Fales, agreed that this citation allowed Plantinga to call the source of the problem EAAN addresses Darwin's Doubt.
[25]Thus, Plantinga argued, the probability that our minds are reliable under a conjunction of philosophical naturalism and naturalistic evolution is low or inscrutable.
Plantinga asserted that the traditional theist believes being made in God's image includes a reflection of divine powers as a knower, but cognitive science finds human reasoning subject to biases and systematic error.
That is to say, in a pragmatic mind beliefs would not even exist if their holder had not come in contact with external belief-producing phenomena in the first place.
also included Plantinga's replies to both the critical responses contained in the book and to some objections raised by others, including Fitelson & Sober: In a chapter titled "The New Creationism: Its Philosophical Dimension", in The Cultures of Creationism, philosopher of science Michael Ruse discussed EAAN.
[36]In 2020, a philosophy paper was published called "Does the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism Defeat God's Beliefs?
It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought.
It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London.
[38]In the 2008 publication Knowledge of God Plantinga presented a formulation of the argument that solely focused on semantic epiphenomenalism instead of the former four jointly exhaustive categories.
The EAAN claims that according to naturalism, evolution must operate on beliefs, desires, and other contentful mental states for a biological organism to have a reliable cognitive faculty such as the brain.
Eliminative materialism maintains that propositional attitudes such as beliefs and desires, among other intentional mental states that have content, cannot be explained on naturalism and therefore concludes that such entities do not exist.
[34] Plantinga has stated that EAAN is not directed against "the theory of evolution, or the claim that human beings have evolved from simian ancestors, or anything in that neighborhood".
[44] He also claimed that the problems raised by EAAN do not apply to the conjunction of theism and contemporary evolutionary science.
[45] In his essay Evolution and Design Plantinga outlines different ways in which theism and evolutionary theory can be combined.