nowletsthink:

One last thing, regarding your personal objection to the EAAN: In every presentation I’ve seen of Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism, Plantinga doesn’t say “Evolution is only natural selection operating on random genetic mutation.” Rather, he tends to say something like that this mechanism is “the principal mechanism.” Furthermore, it’s hard to see that such an understanding of evolution would affect the argument either way. It’s not clear that additional mechanisms - genetic drift, say, or sexual selection, would undercut his argument. Why couldn’t he just add a sentence or two to his presentation and proceed as usual? Perhaps he could say that “The chief mechanism proposed by evolutionary biologists is random genetic mutation, though of course there are others involved too. Genetic drift, sexual selection, and so on.” Dr. Law’s paper in response to Plantinga doesn’t mention what seems to you to be such a glaring, intentional, and fatal error. Nor did he bring it up in his radio discussion with Dr. Plantinga on the EAAN argument. Perhaps this is because the argument could easily undergo such a minor tweaking in presentation and remain fundamentally unchanged. Have I missed something?

I’m only responding to this section because it is the only thing of relevance in your last response.  I’m not going to convince you of Lewis’ flaws; the flaws are clear and perhaps your agreement with him is what clouds your vision.

Did I mention sexual selection as a primary mechanism of evolution?  No.  Sexual selection isn’t a mechanism on its own; it is a sub-mechanism, per se, of natural selection. 

Even if I agree that natural selection is “the principal mechanism,” it is not true that it acts on beliefs as Plantinga claims — that even false beliefs could aid in survival.  That’s the ignorant understanding of evolution I have an issue with; he misrepresents natural selection.  The other mechanisms do undercut his argument because h.sapien isn’t a byproduct of just natural selection.  Thus, it is incumbent on him to explain how the other mechanisms act on our beliefs.  It is something he has failed to do concerning naturalism selection and I would expect him to fail again concerning the other mechanisms.  Law’s issues with the arguments show that the argument isn’t “knock down” as Christians believe.  I haven’t had time to listen to the podcast in full, but I’m not even sure if I have interest in doing so.  Even expert philosophers have forgotten what I consider the core principle of argumentation:  a strong argument must be both valid and sound.  Plantinga’s argument is not sound and thus, I do not understand why expert philosophers are addressing his argument with seeming concern or even interest.  An argument that is simply valid doesn’t warrant interest and definitely doesn’t warrant concern.  This is where his argument fails to be sound: 

“If Darwinism is correct, if Evolution is correct, if evolution and naturalism — their conjunction is correct, then the ultimate purpose of our cognitive faculties would surely be survival or perhaps survival through child bearing, reproductive age, or perhaps maybe we should say:  their ultimate purpose would be the maximization of reproductive fitness. So if they have a purpose then that’s what it is.  Their purpose isn’t to provide us with true beliefs, but to do this other thing, to maximize fitness. …”

That’s his own words at about this point in the presentation.  That assumption is untrue and thus, his argument is unsound.