“But then arises the doubt, can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?”
— Charles Darwin in Portable Atheist, ed. Christoper Hitchens (Da Capo: 2007) p. 96
Charles Darwin, to his credit (for lack of a better word), though the father of evolutionary biology, was also limited by the infancy of his theory of evolution by natural selection. C.S. Peirce stated the following and this can be considered a response to Darwin’s quote—which seems to be the root of Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism.
It seems incontestable, therefore, that the mind of man is strongly adapted to the comprehension of the world; at least, so far as this goes, that certain conceptions, highly important for such a comprehension, naturally arise in his mind; and, without such a tendency, the mind could never have had any development at all.
How are we to explain this adaptation? The great utility and indispensableness of the conceptions of time, space, and force, even to the lowest intelligence, are such as to suggest that they are the results of natural selection. Without something like geometrical, kinetical, and mechanical conceptions, no animal could seize his food or do anything which might be necessary for the preservation of the species…[A]s that animal would have an immense advantage in the struggle for life whose mechanical conceptions did not break down in a novel situation (such as development must bring about), there would be a constant selection in favor of more and more correct ideas of the matters.
Charles Sanders Peirce (1878. “The Order of Nature”, The Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings (1867-1893), p. 181)
Ultimately, this is precisely what I mean by apologists who undermine this or that; in this case, I think it’s the case that you are implying C.S. Lewis’ “unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought” and attempting to undermine the thoughts of non-Christians. Plantinga uses this rationale in an attempt to undermine naturalism, which is the basic assumption of science. He attempts to undermine naturalism because he prefers supernaturalism. Regardless, such rationale is wrong.