Ah — the premise — "true beliefs." There's the rub. What does Plantinga mean by "true beliefs" vis-a-vis evolutionary theory? Please define — Collins would require it. And what do you mean by the metaphor that natural selection is "concerned" with? Natural selection has no concerns. It is simply a term used to describe why some living things survive while others don't. Now artificial selection — selective breeding — does have an intent, but that is because it is guided by an intelligence and it is an intentional and directed process. Natural selection comes into play only when changes in environmental pressures favor one set of genes over another set because of the traits those genes produce in the particular flora or fauna. There is no "concern" at work here; the metaphorical analogy is faulty. The premise is unsound. Of course the conclusion is. Now if I'm misparaphrasing the premise, please correct me. But be specific and concrete in your explanation. The conclusion "he affirmation of a non-theistic ontology is epistemically suicidal" — has no meaning outside of the hermetically sealed environment of philosophy; it does not obtain in the real world which the theory of evolution accurately describes. And I love this: "Bill, I don't know why you argue against this. You yourself are a theist and aren't a metaphysical naturalist. This argument doesn't say that methodological naturalism in science is wrong. Why the disagreement?" You can see things only in philosophical terms. You assume that because I am a theist, I must perforce reject ideas that don't fit into your philosophical and theological presuppositions. Is it really so baffling to you? I don't accept your point of view because it does not work. It denies fact because of doctrine. I separate myself from ALL Christian apologists who in any way deny the discoveries of science based on their presuppositions and predilections. Christianity will not survive in a world if it denies the reality of the world. Call my Christianity RBC — Reality Based Christianity. I reject woo. Plantinga is interested in preserving woo with deductive arguments based on spurious theses concocted in the rare air of philosophical speculation. Plato, god bless him, thought the best way to study astronomy was inside your house. Aristotle knew enough to step outside and look at the stars. So what you're saying is that because I'm a theist I ought to buy into Plantinga's apologia? I repeat a word that I use often with you: Nonsense. How very tribal of you.

Daniel — Just read enough on the Churchlands to know that they are not your allies in this. Clearly "eliminative materialism" would be about as antithetical to your inerrant religiosity as any thing could possibly be. The Churchlands would give your arguments absolutely no quarter and would have no truck with the ideas of Plantinger, so the fact that you're citing them shows an act of desperation. If you want to read about the mind, try Steven Pinker.

Daniel — Well, why didn't' you quote him in the first place. How is an anonymous quote a clarification. I agree — let's let the readers see who is promoting nonsense. I know Plantinga and I'm familiar with his "arguments" and convinced by none. Haven't heard this one, before, but if I ask you for what support he cites for his conclusion, I know the only thing you will be able to do is to point me to a presupposition that he uses as a thesis from which he deduces that conclusion. So I'm asking and giving you a chance to prove me wrong: what is the Plantinga's support for his conclusion? As for the married Churchland team — providential name, wot? — I don't know them. But I will soon. Your comment, by the way, clarified nothing. So it was easy to make fun of. Don't you have any arguments with meat on the bones? Maybe your answer to my Plantinga question will show me some?

Daniel — What arrant nonsense. This not only doesn't address the comment, it distorts it and even then offers nothing but fortune cookie quotes. It is prima facie BS. Please. Stop bringing rubber knives to the gunfight. Oh, wait . . .